RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Digital Banking Flash Crashes; Police State Shoots People; Thomas Jefferson quotes; more.

24 Mar

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-855-566-3738.

 
50 Comments

Posted by on March 24, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

50 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Digital Banking Flash Crashes; Police State Shoots People; Thomas Jefferson quotes; more.

  1. palani

    March 24, 2015 at 8:49 PM

    No date of birth here. I do however have a date of nativity.

     
  2. pesky nat

    March 24, 2015 at 9:06 PM

    A State of the Union TODAY means, a supervised unit in the federal UNION system.The “Union Troops” Won the “War between the States of the THEN Union” meaning.The “Reconstruction Acts” have accomplished a “New States of the Union” definition.

     
  3. pesky nat

    March 24, 2015 at 9:22 PM

    The Sovereignty of the several States, as it once WAS, has been transferred to the Federal Government. I say that all who comprise so called State Government ARE Quasi Federal Government employees. This has been accomplished via Appropriate Legislation & those Reconstruction Acts.

     
    • palani

      March 24, 2015 at 9:25 PM

      No federation of independent states has ever had an iota of sovereignty. I have that on authority from a book written over 100 years ago.

       
      • pesky nat

        March 25, 2015 at 12:15 AM

        palani,
        @ No federation of independent states has ever had an iota of sovereignty. I have that on authority from a book written over 100 years ago.

        “The People, that entire body called the State.” Well’s v. Bain 75 Penn. St. 39; and,
        “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20, and,
        Citizen, “One of the Sovereign People.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393/404; Federalist #78; Penhallow v. Doan, 3 Dall. 54, 93; 2 Elliot’s Debates 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.

        Citizens: Subjects. The members of this society, or the individual units whose association forms the body politic known as the state, are called citizens or subjects; the former term (Citizens) being used in states having republcan forms of government; the latter (Subjects) in those in which monarchial institutions exist.” Accord, The Elements of lntemational Law, 4th ed. George Davis, Harper and Brothers, Publishers.
        Subject. Constitutional law. “One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.” Swiss National. ins. Co. v . Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 69 L. Ed. 504.

         
  4. palani

    March 24, 2015 at 9:23 PM

    Regarding the drivers license: There is a place on the back (this would be the private side of the document) for endorsements. So I endorsed it. Now who is in control of the document?

     
    • Colin

      March 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM

      Why do you say the back is the “private side”?

       
      • pesky nat

        March 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM

        Dear Colin,what does BAR &/or Bar mean.as in, American Bar Association, State Bar Association.
        It’s the word, “Bar.” I’m not talking about a Liquor Bar. Also, Tacit Procuration what is the current LEGAL definition of that? And, will you please give an example of how it is used & what for? Thanks

         
      • palani

        March 25, 2015 at 7:23 AM

        @ Colin “”Why do you say the back is the “private side”?”

        That is the side that had a place for endorsements

        “endorse (v.)
        c.1400, endosse “confirm or approve” (a charter, bill, etc.), originally by signing or writing on the back of the document, from Old French endosser (12c.), literally “to put on the back,” from en- “put on” (see en- (1)) + dos “back,” from Latin dossum, variant of dorsum “back” (see dorsal). Assimilated 16c. in form to Medieval Latin indorsare. Figurative sense of “confirm, approve” is recorded in English first in 1847. Related: Endorsed; endorsing.

        You can endorse, literally, a cheque or other papers, &, metaphorically, a claim or argument, but to talk of endorsing material things other than papers is a solecism. [Fowler] ”

        A coin has an obverse and a reverse. An object has a top and bottom. A paper has a front and a back. A monument has a public side and a private side. If you handle things on the private side then the public side has no reason for complaint and no reason to ‘adjudicate’.

         
      • Colin

        March 25, 2015 at 7:36 AM

        Ok. Nothing you cited establishes that having a space for “endorsements” makes something “private,” that drivers licenses have a private side, or that the government has no jurisdiction over endorsed things. In fact we know it does, which is why fraudulently endorsing checks is a crime.

         
      • palani

        March 25, 2015 at 7:50 AM

        @ Colin *** Nothing you cited establishes that having a space for “endorsements” makes something “private,” that drivers licenses have a private side ***
        Did I say this public/private concept was merely drivers license? Actually all monuments have a public and a private side. That includes mortgages, notes (including Federal Reserve notes), even the original of ‘charging instruments’. There must be a private side to documents else how would you resolve conflicts PRIVATELY? This is merely logic. Without a private side then every issue becomes a PUBLIC issue.

        @ Colin *** that the government has no jurisdiction over endorsed things. In fact we know it does, which is why fraudulently endorsing checks is a crime. ***
        I know what passing a bad check is. I know what kiting a check is. I am afraid I don’t know what ‘fraudulently endorsing’ a check is. Would that be autographing someone elses name on the private side? Fill us in on the concept since this is a new one to me and I would hate to be charged with FRAUDULENTLY endorsing anything.

         
      • Colin

        March 25, 2015 at 5:24 PM

        Did I say this public/private concept was merely drivers license? Actually all monuments have a public and a private side. That includes mortgages, notes (including Federal Reserve notes), even the original of ‘charging instruments’. There must be a private side to documents else how would you resolve conflicts PRIVATELY? This is merely logic. Without a private side then every issue becomes a PUBLIC issue.

        You’re using “private” in a very loose sense here. Do you mean, not governmental? A dispute is private in that sense if government isn’t a party to the dispute; that doesn’t transform the document in a way that removes its official nature. You aren’t using logic, you’re committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning (that private documents are private because they’re the subject of private disputes, which are private because they involve private documents).

        If you really want to make a serious legal argument, how about citing some actual law? I know that’s not as much fun as making things up, but I bet you’d learn something.

        I know what passing a bad check is. I know what kiting a check is. I am afraid I don’t know what ‘fraudulently endorsing’ a check is. Would that be autographing someone elses name on the private side?

        No, because there’s no such thing as a “private side” or “public side.” Especially if you mean, as you seem to, that one side is the public side and then you flip it over and it’s private—nonsense. “Fraudulent endorsement” is not a technical term or term of art; I mean endorsing something with fraudulent intent. The actual charge could be something like fraud or passing a bad check.

         
      • Colin

        March 25, 2015 at 5:30 PM

        Dear Colin,what does BAR &/or Bar mean.as in, American Bar Association, State Bar Association.
        It’s the word, “Bar.” I’m not talking about a Liquor Bar.

        Here you go. It’s not that hard to figure out. There’s no secret meaning.

        Also, Tacit Procuration what is the current LEGAL definition of that? And, will you please give an example of how it is used & what for? Thanks

        Never heard of it. I could google it, but so could you. You might also search Google Scholar for legal cases using the term to see how courts use it, if they do.

         
      • palani

        March 25, 2015 at 6:28 PM

        @ Colin “because there’s no such thing as a “private side” or “public side.” ”

        https://books.google.com/books?id=3iBCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA255&dq=private+side+public+side&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ckMTVZLiGdbaoAS86oLADQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=private%20side%20public%20side&f=false

        “With respect to papers, there is certainly a public and private side … ”
        Courtesy of Th. Jefferson

         
      • Colin

        March 25, 2015 at 6:40 PM

        The reason you have to cut that sentence short and omit any explanation of its context is that it’s wholly irrelevant. He’s taking about public and private in the connect of whether documents must be disclosed or published, not whether they’re governmental documents.

        You’re having a hard time finding actual legal sources that support your point. I think we both know why that is. Your point is wrong, a fantasy rather than a fact. Why not just acknowledge that you can’t find support for your belief, but choose to believe it anyway?

         
      • palani

        March 25, 2015 at 7:01 PM

        @ Colin “The reason you have to cut that sentence short and omit any explanation of its context is that it’s wholly irrelevant”
        Rather let us consider that Mr Jefferson made a slip of the pen that was telling.

        @ Colin “Why not just acknowledge that you can’t find support for your belief, but choose to believe it anyway?”
        I find no support for gravity either yet find myself stuck to the earth.

         
      • Colin

        March 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM

        @ Colin “The reason you have to cut that sentence short and omit any explanation of its context is that it’s wholly irrelevant”
        Rather let us consider that Mr Jefferson made a slip of the pen that was telling.

        You can consider whatever you like. But you cannot demonstrate that your excerpt is at all relevant to what you claimed it said, because in context it is obviously talking about something completely different. You wouldn’t have to twist words and stick your fingers in your ears if you stuck to true, demonstrable statements about the law.

        @ Colin “Why not just acknowledge that you can’t find support for your belief, but choose to believe it anyway?”
        I find no support for gravity either yet find myself stuck to the earth.

        An excellent analogy! Gravity works. We can demonstrate it and watch it function. Your ideas don’t. You can’t find any example of them ever succeeding, because they’re nonsense. Your ideas are like a description of a banana-powered rocket that can fly to Mars in an hour. Kind of a fun idea, but nothing to do with the real world and its boring, demonstrable gravity.

        There’s nothing wrong with making up fun stories about rockets or endorsements that give you super-duper law powers. But some people read stuff like this and believe it’s true, and wind up getting hurt in court because they rely on fantasies like this. See, for example, all the various people who have been fined or found in contempt for relying on the gold-fringed flag nonsense. So it’s worth touching base with reality once in a while and saying, at the very least, “even though I think these ideas are cool, I have to admit they’ve never ever ever been successful in the real world.”

         
      • palani

        March 26, 2015 at 6:06 AM

        @ Colin “You wouldn’t have to twist words and stick your fingers in your ears if you stuck to true, demonstrable statements about the law.”

        Words were twisted in meaning long before I started attempting to un-entangle them. My attempts to give meaning are a ‘twisting’ of them in your mind. Yet here is the deal. I am the only authority that I know. You might make a statement like “THAT WON’T WORK!” or “THAT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING!” As to working: Society seems to revolve around equity these days rather than law and what works in equity is actually losing. Get that? Something that is successful in equity is a controlled loss and that doesn’t sound like my definition of working. As to your understanding: You had to pay hundreds of thousands of fake dollars to become programmed so the BAR would accept you and I would probably have to spend twice that to overcome your programming. Frankly my assets are limited and I have neither the time, assets, inclination or energy to counter the training you voluntarily signed up for. Is there a possibility you could at some time recognize that your education is as fake as the dollars you paid to purchase it?

        I need no case cites or historical documents to define what is a public document or what is a private document. Legislatures are committees and historical documents are the opinion of dead people. I do give credit to Th. Jefferson for a single sentence that leads to the concept I have described. As author my meaning is clear and you have presented no material sufficient to rebut it.

         
      • Colin

        March 26, 2015 at 9:57 PM

        Yet here is the deal. I am the only authority that I know.

        OK, you’re a solipsist. If your theories aren’t connected at all to the outside world, they’re valid only inside your own head. And that’s fine! There’s no harm to making up fun stories about the law to entertain yourself. As long as you’re honest about the value of those imaginary stories. It’s important to remind yourself, or for others to do it for you, that those stories aren’t true outside, in the external world.

        You might make a statement like “THAT WON’T WORK!” or “THAT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING!” As to working: Society seems to revolve around equity these days rather than law and what works in equity is actually losing. Get that?

        It sounds like another made-up story without any basis in fact. What does it mean “to revolve around equity”? Do you understand what equity means in modern courts? How a chancery court works? Are you aware that even cases and courts dealing with equity are required to follow the law?

        Something that is successful in equity is a controlled loss and that doesn’t sound like my definition of working.

        A controlled loss is successful? That doesn’t make any sense to me—what are you trying to say? Can you provide examples? (I doubt it.)

        As to your understanding: You had to pay hundreds of thousands of fake dollars to become programmed so the BAR would accept you and I would probably have to spend twice that to overcome your programming.

        Hundreds of thousands! I know a few people who spent in the low six figures for their education, including college, law school, and some additional grad degree, but I was never anywhere close. Maybe it’s more today?

        You don’t have to spend anything to convince me I’m wrong. Just show me evidence. Demonstrate that your ideas actually work. Your failure to do so discredits your ideas; your belief that such evidence is irrelevant to your ideas discredits your thinking.

        Frankly my assets are limited and I have neither the time, assets, inclination or energy to counter the training you voluntarily signed up for.

        I will believe that these limitations—which we all share—are the actual reason you refuse to learn actual facts about the law when you invest even a minimal amount of time in studying the freely available material you can find online. The Coursera classes I keep recommending look great, and can be taken on your own time, for free. I took a game theory class from the University of Tokyo while waiting around in airports during business trips. You could take a class on American law in the time you spend promulgating nonsense theories in blog comments.

        I suspect that for most people who peddle such useless theories online, the obstacle to learning is not time or resources, since you can get a basic education that takes little time and no money. But an education on actual facts entails a serious risk: you will have to come to terms with the wrongness of your cherished ideas. As long as you never study, and never pay attention to the failure of your ideas to survive comparisons to the real world, you don’t run that risk and are free to think of yourself as an expert. So actual knowledge has a downside but no upside, while fantasizing has an upside but no downside (as long as you don’t actually ever test your ideas in court on your own behalf).

        Is there a possibility you could at some time recognize that your education is as fake as the dollars you paid to purchase it?

        Just demonstrate that your ideas work.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 27, 2015 at 1:31 AM

        Colin, @ There’s nothing wrong with making up fun stories about rockets
        I agree with that. I not only thought it was fun, I thought it was funny too, you saying, banana-powered rocket. I once had a banana powered rocket. Sad to say I don’t no mo tho. Hey thanks for telling me how to find out about tacit procuration. I just thought you might know the current up to date definition in/of the current legal system.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 27, 2015 at 9:31 AM

        Colin. You say to, palani, > OK, you’re a solipsist.
        Colin, Sophistry is defined as, a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
        OK Colin, so you’re a Sophistrist? < Maybe that ain't spelt rite.

         
      • palani

        March 27, 2015 at 11:08 AM

        @ Colin “you’re a solipsist.”
        No … because a solipsist only recognizes his own existence. Why would I bother with you if you don’t exist (somewhere?)

        @ Colin “Are you aware that even cases and courts dealing with equity are required to follow the law?”
        Nonsense. A sole judicial actor is sufficient to take your life or put you away in a gray bar hotel forever. In law a panel of judicial actors is required and any one of them can cut you loose. Equity is the female equivalent of law.

        @ Colin “A controlled loss is successful? That doesn’t make any sense to me”
        Right. To any logical man or woman that wouldn’t sound very successful either. Then why do you attorneys insist upon plea bargaining? If a guy (or doll) is guilty he should do the time.

        @ Colin “Hundreds of thousands! I know a few people who spent in the low six figures for their education, including college, law school, and some additional grad degree, but I was never anywhere close. Maybe it’s more today?”
        Doesn’t matter if it is just a single FRN. One is as colorable as a trillion.

        @ Colin “You don’t have to spend anything to convince me I’m wrong. Just show me evidence. ”
        Show me evidence that a Boston Marathon bombing happened.

         
      • Colin

        March 27, 2015 at 6:30 PM

        No … because a solipsist only recognizes his own existence.

        I think you qualify by taking the position that only your uneducated and uninformed guesses about the law are significant, as opposed to the outside world’s facts and reality. I don’t expect that you’d agree with that assessment, as it implies that your ignorance is less than noble, which appears to be your preferred belief.

        Nonsense. A sole judicial actor is sufficient to take your life or put you away in a gray bar hotel forever. In law a panel of judicial actors is required and any one of them can cut you loose. Equity is the female equivalent of law.

        It sounds like you’re trying to say that judgments in equity can’t be appealed, which is just bizarre and (unsurprisingly) factually incorrect. At anything above the parking ticket level (and maybe there too, I don’t know much about municipal law), judges’ rulings are appealable. And every appeals court I’ve ever heard of uses panels of at least three “judicial actors,” otherwise known as judges, whether the underlying action arose in equity or law.

        You really, truly don’t understand the difference between law and equity. You don’t have to pretend to know things like this. You could just let the point drop, or say, “I don’t know how that works.” Making it up as you go along is a little dishonest, isn’t it?

        @ Colin “A controlled loss is successful? That doesn’t make any sense to me”
        Right. To any logical man or woman that wouldn’t sound very successful either. Then why do you attorneys insist upon plea bargaining? If a guy (or doll) is guilty he should do the time.

        Didn’t realize that’s what you meant—“controlled loss” is a pretty good description of a plea bargain! People like plea bargains for the same reason they like settlements. When you settle a case, you control the risk. You can bargain for a small penalty rather than running the risk of a much bigger one. It’s just a very human way of thinking, negotiating over something. Most people aren’t happy to agree on a plea bargain, they just prefer it to the risk of a bigger penalty.

        @ Colin “You don’t have to spend anything to convince me I’m wrong. Just show me evidence. ”
        Show me evidence that a Boston Marathon bombing happened.

        When you ask someone to back up what they’re saying and they respond with a total non sequitur, it’s a strong clue that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

         
      • Henry

        March 27, 2015 at 8:39 PM

        Colin said, “Making it up as you go along is a little dishonest, isn’t it?”

        The fantasyland of Patriot Babel is only secondarily about invincible ignorance and flimsy logic. First and foremost, it’s about lies.

        By their fruits you shall know them. And the fruit of the mental gymnastics you’ll encounter in Patriot Babel is, at least, a political dead end for the honest patriot. At worst, it’s prison time for nearly everyone naive enough to try Patriot Babel’s word salad “legalese” in a real world court. Never mind the fraudulent “freedom” pitch you’re getting.

        They proclaim “freedom” while delivering the tyranny that befalls a politically disengaged populous – if not outright incarceration. They decry “legal fiction” while feeding you a truckload of imaginary invention about the law. Typical profile of a charlatan or disinfo agent.

         
      • palani

        March 27, 2015 at 9:03 PM

        @ Colin ” I think you qualify by taking the position that only your uneducated and uninformed guesses about the law are significant, as opposed to the outside world’s facts and reality. I don’t expect that you’d agree with that assessment, as it implies that your ignorance is less than noble, which appears to be your preferred belief.”

        You forget entirely. I cannot be ignorant of any law that it is my duty to understand and which every man is presumed to know. Yet knowing there is only ignorance of law and ignorance of fact you prefer to label me ignorant of EVERYTHING!!!! Since you have not walked in my shoes then possibly you are ignorant of what I take for granted? The filters you have had installed in your fake education that you paid for with fake dollars certainly appears to keep you from even attempting to understand my law. This blog is called ADASK’S LAW. Not U.S. Law. Not Texas Law. And not even PALANI’s Law. Certainly it cannot be reserved for COLIN’s Law!!!!

        @ Colin “It sounds like you’re trying to say that judgments in equity can’t be appealed, which is just bizarre ”
        Actually in my attempts to decipher the foreign law that is practiced in modern courts I have come to the conclusion that the Law phase is the appeal and only the appeal as these courts tend to have multiple judicial actors. In my law a single judge has only the authority to decide whether bail is appropriate and the amount and has not even the authority to summons me to his court. And if I happen to be seated behind the bar he has not the authority to order me to remove a hat or to stand up.

        @ Colin “You really, truly don’t understand the difference between law and equity. You don’t have to pretend to know things like this. You could just let the point drop, or say, “I don’t know how that works.” Making it up as you go along is a little dishonest, isn’t it?”
        I have told you before I am ignorant of foreign law and have no duty to understand it. Why would I bother to feign some intelligence on this topic when I have no need?

        @ Colin ” When you ask someone to back up what they’re saying and they respond with a total non sequitur, it’s a strong clue that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
        In other words you weren’t there and have no more knowledge of the facts than I do. Would it be too much to ask that your statements be straightforward rather than diversionary?

        I use the Boston Marathon bombing to point out that few of us have any evidence of anything at all … except that we are ignorant if we don’t know our own law and don’t have enough sense to figure out what is foreign law.
        .

         
      • palani

        March 27, 2015 at 9:09 PM

        @ Henry “The fantasyland of Patriot Babel is only secondarily about invincible ignorance and flimsy logic. First and foremost, it’s about lies.”
        Patriotism is said to be the last refuge of a scoundrel. Now in the previous conversation where has anything patriotic been brought up? Or would you just like to start a new topic?

         
      • Roger

        March 28, 2015 at 1:25 AM

        @Henry “Typical profile of a charlatan or disinfo agent.”

        Indeed, the villainous feeders of disinformation into the American body politic are themselves not patriots, despite their occasional pretense for marketing purposes. This is like how the villainous feeders of non-Biblical doctrines into the Christian church, for a political agenda, are themselves often not Christians, despite their frequent pretense for marketing purposes.

        Someone engaged to sell a product is not necessarily a user of it themselves. Why assume that belief in a given “word salad legal theory” is a necessarily condition for the marketing of this theory to others? Surely you weren’t born yesterday.

        And then one finds the occasional dupe who’s merely repeating disinformation originally promulgated by an intentional villain. Telling the mere dupe from the intentional villain does takes a modicum of discernment, including answering the following: Is this person too clever to actually believe the injurious claptrap they’re distributing?

        Moreover, is this person too clever to actually believe the childish nonsense with which they responded to the thorough debunking their injurious claptrap just received?

        What’s wrong with this picture?

         
  5. pesky nat

    March 24, 2015 at 10:09 PM

    We The Animals have privileges dictated by Government. Rights PROTECTED by Government are outmoded, & behind the times. THIS IS the way it IS. Only those People who live in the REAL world understand. It all seems to have the markings of, The “Mark of The Beast.” These Beasts mentioned in the Bible mean, Governments

     
  6. Rex Trover

    March 24, 2015 at 10:49 PM

    “more”

    Right. _*ALL*_ we got was “more” of “Charlie”, so I exited after 90 minutes.

    She is the same “person” who was spreading disinformation in a PMA several months ago.

    “Thanks” Alfred.

    And don’t bother telling me I don’t have to listen.

     
  7. palani

    March 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM

    More regarding endorsing the private side of any monument (document … writing):

    Public officials are required to take and subscribe an oath of office in front of (generally) a notary public. They are also required to submit a bond in some penal sum in the event they don’t perform. The endorsement of these documents is on the reverse side … the private side.

    If you have a complaint against any public official try to find his original oath and bond, flip it over to the private side and endorse it yourself. Who then is the responsible party? Even if the incumbent did properly endorse on the reverse who is to say that you cannot endorse it yourself?

    The question is then ‘Does this act give you standing to complain about the previous endorser (or non-endorser as the case may be)?

     
  8. Colin

    March 25, 2015 at 5:46 PM

    Public officials are required to take and subscribe an oath of office in front of (generally) a notary public. They are also required to submit a bond in some penal sum in the event they don’t perform.

    Only some public officials are required to be bonded. Which will depend on the state you’re in (and perhaps the county). It’s more common on the state and local level than the federal level. The bond is not a punitive measure or a “penal sum.”

    The endorsement of these documents is on the reverse side … the private side.

    The reverse side is not “the private side.” There is no such rule that one side is public and the other is private, or that endorsements make a document private. This is a fantasy, not a statement of what the law actually is.

    If you have a complaint against any public official try to find his original oath and bond, flip it over to the private side and endorse it yourself.

    Or click your heels together three times and blow your nose. That will have just as much legal effect as signing a public official’s bond yourself. Unless you have a reason to sign it–you’re the public official in question, for example, or you’re witnessing the signature as a notary–putting your own name on it has zero legal effect. (Other than whatever penalties may arise from defacing a public document.)

    Who then is the responsible party?

    Not you. Signing someone else’s oath doesn’t give you their office or their powers, or affect their office or their powers, or do anything else.

    Even if the incumbent did properly endorse on the reverse who is to say that you cannot endorse it yourself?

    This is shoddy thinking; you can sign your name to anything you want. If you think that signature does something, though, it’s your obligation to show how and why. Try looking in real laws and cases to figure this one out–you’ll have a hard time finding any that support your theory, because your theory is completely wrong.

    The question is then ‘Does this act give you standing to complain about the previous endorser (or non-endorser as the case may be)?

    It does not.

     
    • palani

      March 25, 2015 at 6:38 PM

      @ Colin ” The bond is not a punitive measure or a “penal sum.””
      If not subject to forfeiture in the event of malfeasance why bother having any bond at all?

      @ Colin “The reverse side is not “the private side.””
      Th. Jefferson begs to differ. I think he has you beat by a couple hundred years and WAY more experience.

      @ Colin “putting your own name on it has zero legal effect.”
      Then if there is little upside potential there is absolutely no downside potential is there?

      @ Colin “Signing someone else’s oath doesn’t give you their office or their powers”
      A judicial actor once instructed several county attorneys to send me ‘copies’ of their oaths. One such county attorney ignored the order and the other complied. Since it was a copy no examination of the reverse could be performed but what stood out was that the notary had signed the form and committed her seal while the county attorney had not even bothered to sign it. I directed a question to the secretary of state (being the notaries superior) concerning whether the notary had been adequately trained in her job. The sec of state agreed with me and sent a notary manual to the offending notary.

      And you say not agreeing to be responsible for the performance of a public officer would put one in a position of being able to chastise that employee for poor performance? All I can say is … someone needs to tell ’em what to do because they can’t figure it out by themselves.

       
      • Colin

        March 25, 2015 at 9:50 PM

        @ Colin ” The bond is not a punitive measure or a “penal sum.””
        If not subject to forfeiture in the event of malfeasance why bother having any bond at all?

        It can be forfeited, but even if the action of calling the bond can be punitive, the bond itself isn’t. If it was, we’d be punishing everyone who had to get one to take office. It’s not an important point, just technical terminology.

        @ Colin “The reverse side is not “the private side.””
        Th. Jefferson begs to differ. I think he has you beat by a couple hundred years and WAY more experience.

        And, as we established above, he was talking about something completely different. You went looking for evidence that would support your ideas and couldn’t find it. So you snagged some random passage in which Jefferson is talking about “public” and “private” and “documents.” Except he’s talking about the public and private side of offices, and he’s using those words in the context of privacy, not the fundamental nature of the documents. And therefore you had to snip all the context out so that casual readers wouldn’t see how incredibly out of context your citation is. You wouldn’t have to do that stuff if you weren’t so committed to believing that these fantasies are true; there’s a reason you cant find any evidence supporting them. There isn’t any.

        @ Colin “Signing someone else’s oath doesn’t give you their office or their powers”
        A judicial actor once instructed several county attorneys…

        Great anecdote. And totally, 100% irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make. Signing someone else’s oath for them doesn’t have any legal effect.

        And you say not agreeing to be responsible for the performance of a public officer would put one in a position of being able to chastise that employee for poor performance?

        Do I?

        All I can say is … someone needs to tell ‘em what to do because they can’t figure it out by themselves.

        If you stuck with truth instead of wild fantasies, you might be in a position to educate them.

         
      • palani

        March 26, 2015 at 6:16 AM

        @ Colin “there’s a reason you cant find any evidence supporting them. There isn’t any.”
        And if you had been born in the 13th century you would have torched anyone who claimed the earth was round because he had no evidence to make such a claim?

        @ Colin “ Signing someone else’s oath for them doesn’t have any legal effect.”
        Endorsing is NOT signing someone’s oath. Endorsing is an act of assuming responsibility. Could it be YOU are guilty of twisting words (GASP!!!)?

        @ Colin “If you stuck with truth instead of wild fantasies…”
        When you purchased your law degree did you use real money or did you pay with Federal Reserve Notes? If the latter then possibly you are the one in the colorable world that is “not Kansas”? If you use fake money then do you even own your education? If not you then who is the owner of all your vast knowledge and …. who is the one having the wild fantasies?

         
      • Colin

        March 26, 2015 at 12:34 PM

        @ Colin “there’s a reason you cant find any evidence supporting them. There isn’t any.”
        And if you had been born in the 13th century you would have torched anyone who claimed the earth was round because he had no evidence to make such a claim?

        People in the 13th century did have evidence to support such a claim—the world was proven round long before then. Greek philosophers could calculate the circumference of the planet based on differential shadow lengths. They used evidence to support their theories. You have simply made something up and asserted that it is true, without any effort to do what they did: test it and prove it.

        @ Colin “ Signing someone else’s oath for them doesn’t have any legal effect.”
        Endorsing is NOT signing someone’s oath. Endorsing is an act of assuming responsibility. Could it be YOU are guilty of twisting words (GASP!!!)?

        One meaning of the word “endorsement” is to sign something. It doesn’t particularly matter if you meant something else by the word; signing someone else’s oath doesn’t do anything other than put your signature on the document, so there’s no deeper meaning of the word “endorsement” at play. It’s a meaningless action; you’ve obviously been trying to find some significance there, but you can’t even articulate what that significance might be, much less find any evidence to support your notion. There’s a reason for that—you’re just plain wrong.

        When you purchased your law degree did you use real money or did you pay with Federal Reserve Notes? If the latter then possibly you are the one in the colorable world that is “not Kansas”? If you use fake money then do you even own your education?

        Using “Federal Reserve Notes” to buy something doesn’t mean that you don’t own it. Just FYI, that’s another baseless bit of fantasy. It’s irrelevant in this case, as an education is something you can’t “own” in a legal sense.

        If not you then … who is the one having the wild fantasies?

        You. It’s an objective question: one of us has beliefs about the law that are consistent with the external world. I’ve actually litigated and won cases on the basis of my legal education. You’re just making things up and pontificating in blog comments. When pressed, you can’t find anything that supports your inventive theories. These are not equal positions.

        Here’s the good news! You don’t have to buy a legal education. You can take classes for free, online, in your own time, from some of the best law professors out there. It would go a long way to curing your delusions about how the law works. I strongly recommend the study to you—it’s not as much fun as making up creative short stories about the law, but you’d have a much deeper understanding of how the law actually works.

         
      • palani

        March 26, 2015 at 6:44 PM

        @ Colin “you’re just making things up and pontificating”

        Actually I understand law very well. Refer to Bouvier on the topic of IGNORANCE:

        Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our
        duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

        Whose law do I have a duty to understand? To answer my own question: MY OWN LAW.
        What law is every man presumed to know? To answer my own question: HIS OWN LAW.

        Bouvier (as well as others … Bouvier really doesn’t create much of anything in his dictionary) separates ignorance into ‘of fact’ and ‘of law’. Ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a fact. I certainly cannot proclaim that I have any knowledge at all of foreign laws and therefore am ignorant of quite a few facts. My ignorance extends to many other ‘facts’: whether there actually was a moon landing; whether planes or missiles were used on 9/11; whether there was a bomb drill going on when the Boston marathon event happened; and so on.

         
      • Colin

        March 26, 2015 at 10:00 PM

        Whose law do I have a duty to understand? To answer my own question: MY OWN LAW.

        Mere solipsism. As I’ve said, you’re just entertaining yourself with fairy tales; it apparently gives you some satisfaction to spin tall tales about the law, and it’s harmless for the most part. But since you aren’t forthright enough to give your readers a caveat (such as, “I made this up, I have no idea whether it would actually work and can’t find any evidence supporting the notion”), I think it’s morally good to point out that your beliefs are wholly inaccurate.

         
      • palani

        March 27, 2015 at 10:59 AM

        @ Colin “Mere solipsism. ”
        If I were the only one in existence then why would I bother responding to you?

         
      • Adask

        March 27, 2015 at 12:36 PM

        I wonder if everyone commenting on “solipsism” is on the same page in terms of definition of “solipsism”. For example, Wikipedia defines “solipsism” as follows:

        “Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”)[1] is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.”

        It that the definition everyone in this thread assumes or accepts?

         
      • palani

        March 27, 2015 at 4:27 PM

        @Adask “It that the definition everyone in this thread assumes or accepts?”

        I am not far enough up the metaphysical food chain to accept any other position than ‘THAT IS NOT ME!’ Sophists rely upon classification to count coup … even to the point of hoping that solipsism is mistaken for sophism.

         
      • Colin

        March 27, 2015 at 6:35 PM

        Is that the definition everyone in this thread assumes or accepts?

        That goes further than I intend. I’ve always thought of solipsism like I think of most adjectives and categories, as a sliding scale. An extreme solipsist might think that literally nothing else exists, but I think the word also applies to people who just don’t think the outside world is as important as the world going on in their own head. That is, more a question of priorities than epistemology or metaphysics. I think palani qualifies as he seems to have taken the position that it doesn’t matter if his ideas wouldn’t work in the real world, so long as they please him. Sorry if my meaning was unclear.

         
      • Adask

        March 27, 2015 at 6:40 PM

        No need to apologize. Meanings are always unclear. That’s why I wrote “Reading is Guessing” . . . if you know what I mean.

         
      • palani

        March 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM

        @ Colin “I think palani qualifies as he seems to have taken the position that it doesn’t matter if his ideas wouldn’t work in the real world, so long as they please him.”
        Would you point out where I have any duty or obligation to please anyone else?

        And how would you know what the real world is? Have you ever held a real dollar in your hand? Do you believe that is air that you are breathing? Do you believe you are hue-man (aka a monster according to Ballentine)? Could you fill us all in on all laws you might be ignorant of? Or how evidence must be presented to justify each period, semi-colon and jot in your world except for those random statements you make for the sole pleasure of hearing your keyboard click its’ rhythm to your ears?

         
  9. Jeff D.

    March 25, 2015 at 7:48 PM

    Question: Police State – With all of the military equipment (MRAP’s, Bearcats, etc.) in temporary custody of police departments across the country, will these strategically placed assets be utilized by the military during the JADE HELM exercise?

    While the initial cost for said equipment has been paid at the federal level, all these police departments had to do was apply for items, sign some forms and then pay for transportation. No city funds have been allocated for operating expenses.

    Futhermore, these departments lack the training to operate the equipment, lack the maintenance crews to service them and lack the supply chain to procure parts.

    All of this gives credibility to the theory that the federal government/military is the only entity capable of using the equipment and certaintly not the police acting alone.

    Only a civil emergency would justify such a joint force collaboration.

    Continuity of Government plans should be based upon consent of the governed. COG(squared).

     
    • Colin

      March 25, 2015 at 9:54 PM

      Futhermore, these departments lack the training to operate the equipment, lack the maintenance crews to service them and lack the supply chain to procure parts.

      How do you know this? Especially as to maintenance and supply, I’m skeptical; I lack the crews and supply chain to service my car, but that’s not really a problem when I can contract with someone who does to handle that maintenance for me.

       
      • Jeff D.

        March 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM

        It appears to be a more of a weapons cache strategy than a simple gifting of war machines.

        The ability to drive them is as simple as any other vehicle, but to utilize them in a defensive formation requires planning, communication and training. Try turning around within the typical width of a road in an urban environment. You may have just inadvertently barricaded the road. Is the objective to simply parade around a city, protect a zone or building, pursue hostile forces or reach a destination?

        The New Orleans police fled the city after Katrina. Do you suppose the same would happen in a similiar situation of absolute chaos? Or even worse, during a civil unrest scenario where there is actual guerrilla warfare taking place?

        In a time of prolonged economic stagnation, do you really believe that there will be money to spare for maintenance and supplies? A just-in-time logistics plan would be useless and your equipment would be out of commission for days. Are they going to have a tow truck pick them up and then get serviced at a shop that has no parts in stock?

        Absent of outside sources for funding and an established maintenance plan, I find it unconvincing that these police departments can sustain operations for a significant lenght of time.

         
  10. pesky nat

    March 27, 2015 at 5:46 PM

    Dear Alfred,
    1. Colin said, palani, is a solipsist. Technically, Colin said, “OK, you’re a solipsist.”
    2. I brought up, Sophistry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with, solipsist
    3. I said to, Colin, Sophistry is defined as, a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
    4.Then, I ASKED Colin, > OK Colin, so you’re a Sophistrist?
    5. Truthfully, I don’t think there is a word, although there may be, that defines what a “man” is called if he practices Sophistry.
    6. If Colin can say,to, palani, OK, you’re a solipsist, then I can ASK Colin, so you’re a Sophistrist?

     
  11. Adask

    March 27, 2015 at 6:18 PM

    You have my permission to ask. Colin has my permission to answer. Neither of you are required by me to ask or answer any questions because, based on the possibility that I might be a possible solipsist, I can’t be sure that either of you actually exist.

     
    • pesky nat

      March 27, 2015 at 6:58 PM

      @ I can’t be sure that either of you actually exist.
      We know for sure, palani, does. We can take comfort in that.

       
      • Kieth Ahrens

        May 17, 2016 at 7:50 PM

        Savvy suggestions . For what it’s worth , others are looking for a HUD-1 , my business filled a blank form here http://goo.gl/hCEtgO

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s