RSS

Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity

14 Jun

Contradiction? [courtesy Google Images]

Contradiction?
[courtesy Google Images]

The following email got me thinking:

 

Dear Mr. Adask ……………..

I sent the letter to you below back on 22 December 2014 and have been following your emails since then and so far no mention of the issue I presented.  Since then I have gone through the Federal District Court System and the Federal Circuit Court System and have identified eleven corrupt members of the judiciary. Now I am preparing a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of whether a judge who breaks the law is immune from damages liability if in breaking settled law he observes otherwise correct procedural guidelines. I believe the absurdity of that proposition to be absolutely dumbfounding!

So now we will see what the SCT has to say. I entertain no high expectation even though the SCT made it clear in Stump v. Sparkman that judges who perform non-judicial acts shed their immunity!

It’s serious stuff, Mr. Adask. I just hope the book I’m writing about this increasingly screwed up legal system of ours will effect some mid-course correction!

My Letter of 12-22-14 ………………….

We have the most innovative nation in the world! The fact of that matter is a direct function of our having the most effective legal system in the world, a common-law hybrid, if you will.

But that system has an inherent flaw that eventually will render the system we have effete unless addressed and corrected.  Unless that happens, we will lose our innovative leadership and with it our economic dominance and this wonderful thing we have will go down the tubes!

The fatal flaw I address is the absolute immunity of the judiciary. I have no quarrel with absolute immunity, but there are exceptions as delineated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Stump v. Sparkman decision, and those exceptions are not being enforced and we as a nation are losing the requisite freedom vital to our innovative leadership and good life!

I recently won a court case (2014.ME.53) the result of which was the forced resignation of the presiding judge who went beyond the pale. Had I been a lawyer, I never would have represented me because there is currently no money in judicial malpractice, and I would not go up against the Bench for the pittance of $150 an hour.  I am attempting to change that by suing the judge on a 14th Amendment issue for enough money, that, if I prevail, will hopefully encourage lawyers to pick up the gauntlet on contingency.  But the issue needs to be publicized by someone with clout: The public at large is unaware of this festering weakness and its inevitable consequences!

Sincerely …………………… Phil, Ellsworth, Maine.

 

 

Hi Phil,

Your current email is interesting, intriguing.  But I have no recollection of receiving the previous letter that you sent last December.  That’s not surprising since my memory isn’t as good as it used to be and I sometime receive up to 200 email a day (who can remember all of that?).  But the subject of your first letter strikes me as so important, that I’m pretty sure I would remember it–if I’d received it.

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I received your first letter.

However, I am intrigued by your comments in your most recent email that:

 

“Now I am preparing a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of whether a judge who breaks the law is immune from damages liability if in breaking settled law he observes otherwise correct procedural guidelines. I believe the absurdity of that proposition to be absolutely dumbfounding!

“So now we will see what the SCT has to say. I entertain no high expectation even though the SCT made it clear in Stump v. Sparkman that judges who perform non-judicial acts shed their immunity!”

.

I don’t recall reading Stump vs Sparkman, but based on your text, I have a theory as to why “judges who perform non-judicial acts shed their immunity” but judges who “break the law are immune from damages . . . so long as he observes procedural guidelines.”

I’ve written six previous articles on my blog on the subject of “Administrative Law”.

The cornerstone for those six articles is the “administrative law” article in American Jurisprudence 2nd (AmJur2nd) which tells us repeatedly that the fundamental feature of administrative law is this:  Under administrative law, the three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) are all combined under a single authority.   Thus, administrative law is contrary to the fundamental concept of “separation of powers”—that the three major powers of government be separated into three separate constitutional “branches”.

I’ve argued that:

 

 1) I am one of the People of The State of Texas;

2) I’m therefore a beneficiary of the express, charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas”;

3) one of those “benefits” is “Division of Powers” as per Article 2 of the Texas Constitution;

4) administrative law violates the concept of separation of powers; and therefore,

 5) I refuse to consent to being deprived of the loss of my right to a judicial trial and being instead subjected to administrative law or an administrative court; and

 6) I will happily appear in any Article 5 (Texas Constitution) judicial court.

.

I’ve presented that argument in a previous court case and the government did stop prosecuting, although I thought that stop was based on other reasons.

But your email makes me realize that, if my notions about administrative law are correct, we can only be dragged into an administrative court with our express or implied consent.  If so, being subject to administrative law is a voluntary act.   We can each say Yes, or perhaps No, depending on our personal preference.

If the previous speculation were true, a truly “Judicial” court would seem to act only under the “judicial” branch of your State or national government.  The “Judicial” court would be completely separate from the legislature and executive branches.  But, because administrative law acts as a combination of legislative, executive and judicial powers, an administrative court is not a true, “judicial” court.  If so, whenever a judge committed a non-judicial act (and that would theoretically include operating an administrative court), the judge would be liable for damages–unless the injured party had voluntarily assented to participate in the non-judicial (administrative) court process.

If this theory were true, it would follow that a defendant who didn’t expressly object to being tried, prosecuted, or “adjudicated” in an administrative tribunal would be presumed to have consented to be tried in that administrative (non-judicial) forum.  If the defendant consented to a non-judicial trial, he might have no grounds to complain of the judge’s conduct unless the judge violated the rules of administrative procedure.

If this line of speculation were valid, it might even follow that “administrative law” is some sort of private law wherein the administrative court’s jurisdiction in each case depended on the personal “consent” of each defendant.

That “consent” might not necessarily be expressly declared at the onset of each administrative court hearing.   For example, did the defendant have a drivers license? By virtue of such drivers license did the defendant agree to bound by the (private?) “rules of the road” rather than the constitutional “law of the land

Who owns the “road”?  Is it owned by the People or by some private entity?   Who sets the rules for the “road”? We the People or some private trust which owns legal title to the “road”?

If the “road” is owned by some private entity and the defendant has a drivers license, can he thereby be presumed to have consented to be tried in a (private?) administrative process?

What about use of a vehicle registration on the defendant’s car or a license plate?  What about use of a Social Security number or a bank signature card?  How ‘bout use of credit cards, debit cards or even public (private?) utilities?  How ‘bout use of (private?) Federal Reserve Notes rather than constitutional money?  What about a concealed-carry permit?

Could any or all of these licenses, applications or pledges be construed as evidence that you’ve consented to be subject to the decisions of an administrative, non-judicial court rather than constitutional, judicial court?

Could this explain why some state governments are eager to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens?  Could it be that the illegals aren’t subject to administrative law unless they’ve expressed some kind of consent by taking a drivers license or some such?   Could it be that Obama’s proposed amnesty-for-illegal-aliens program is really intended less to provide illegals with “amnesty”?  Or is this “amnesty” really a device to ensure that illegals can be presumed to be subject to government’s administrative law and administrative courts?

Most of what modern government does is now “administrative”.  Does the modern concept of “procedural due process” flow from the 14th Amendment?  Or does “substantive due process” flow from judicial courts and the constitutional principle of separation of powers, while “procedural due process” flows from, and is required in our non-judicial, administrative courts?

Is the immunity for judges that based on following “procedural guidelines” applicable only to judges who don’t act in a “judicial” capacity (and therefore have no “judicial immunity”), but instead are acting in the non-judicial capacity in an administrative court?

Could it be that the “absurdity” you complained of (that judges lose their judicial immunity when they perform a non-judicial act; but maintain some other kind of immunity so long as their acts are procedurally correct) be the result of two different forums rather than a contradiction?  I.e., the judge acting judicially in a judicial court will enjoy judicial immunity unless he acts in a non-judicial manner.

But a judge acting in a non-judicial court (such as administrative court?) will maintain a non-judicial, procedural immunity so long he doesn’t violate the “procedural due process” rules of administrative law?

Does the judge enjoy one kind of immunity (judicial) when he’s in a judicial court and a second kind of immunity (procedural) when he’s in a non-judicial (presumably, administrative) court?  If so, the two kinds of immunity you complained of may not be truly contradictory.

Again, all of this is conjectural.  More, it’s only a theory that I’ve conjured up in the last few minutes.   It’s not be relied on.

 

•  Even so, this theory really rings my bell.  To me, and for the moment, it sounds plausible and potentially important.

I.e., if the theory I’m proposing here turned out to be roughly correct, it might open the door to avoiding 90% or more of the non-judicial, administrative process that government routinely uses to assault us–supposedly with our consent.

I think we might have lift-off, here.

 

•  I’ll read Stump vs Sparkman to confirm that judges acting in a non-judicial capacity can lose their judicial immunity.  That makes perfect sense, of course.  “Judicial” immunity must be available only to those judges who act in a “judicial” capacity.  If there’s an immunity for judges who act in a non-judicial capacity (like operating an administrative court), that immunity might be based on a non-judicial source such as the private consent of the defendant to “voluntarily” subject himself to administrative law.

I get that.

But I don’t yet understand whichever authority you’re relying on to support your claim that a “judge who breaks the law is immune from damages liability if in breaking settled law he observes otherwise correct procedural guidelines.” 

I would very much like to see whatever cite, authority, opinion, etc. justifies your claim that judges who merely follow procedure are immune from damages caused by their own unlawful acts.  CAN YOU SUPPLY?

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Al

 

 

 
131 Comments

Posted by on June 14, 2015 in Administrative Law, Immunity

 

Tags: , , , ,

131 responses to “Speculation on Non-Judicial Immunity

  1. Roger

    June 14, 2015 at 9:21 PM

    The important phrase in this case is “clear absence of all jurisdiction”, which Stump v. Sparkman repeatedly uses as the criterion for a non-judicial act.

    Also from the ruling:

    “Because Judge Stump performed the type of act normally performed only by judges and because he did so in his capacity as a Circuit Court Judge, we find no merit to respondents’ argument that the informality with which he proceeded rendered his action nonjudicial and deprived him of his absolute immunity.”

     
    • Joe L'Amarca

      June 14, 2015 at 11:56 PM

      Study the U S Constitution and if your smart enough you will understand that in case law you have no Right or Immunity .the criminals in the black robe are the true traitors of the U S Constitution .
      The 11th amendment was proposed for ratification in 1784 EXCEPTED IN 1785 AND FOR THOSE THAT DONT SHIT ABOUT THE u s cONSTITUTION THERE IS TWO CONFLICT THERE CREATED BY THE CRIMINALS IN THE BLACK ROBE , CAN ANYONE FIND THEM ? i WILL SHOW YOU THAT THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR THE BAR ASSOCIATION ..
      OH PHIL ! THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS A FRAUD , BUT YOUR FAVORITE THAT HOW THE BAR ASS. INCORPORATED 4TH AND 5 TH ARTICLE OF THE BILL OF RIGHT INTO THE 14TH AMENDMENT . IN THE CASE SANTA CLARA COUNTY ..https://www.google.com/search?q=Santa+Clara+County+v.+Southern+Pacific+Railroad+Co THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE HOW THE JUDGES TURNED US ALL INTO ROBOTTS FOR THE CORPORATION !! BUT NOT ME i KNOW THE TRUTH SO ASK MR. ADASK TO CONTACT ME OR YOU JOE L’AMARICA

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 3:12 AM

      Roger,
      @ Playing both holier-than-thou judgmental moralist and invincibly-ignorant village idiot at the same time is a hobby more dangerous than skydiving.
      How do you know so well? :-) D

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM

      Roger,
      @ June 16, 2015 at 4:59 PM
      In other words, explaining how we are railroaded makes a difference? Some people ask, what happened? The explanation is given as you say in your message. I call it pouring salt on the wound.

       
    • Jerry Byrd

      July 3, 2015 at 11:56 PM

      Roger,
      @ ” Lol, yep. This was confirmed when the mental midget ……………………………………………….”
      Roger. You ain’t BIG you just TALL THAT’S ALL ! :-) D

       
    • Allen Curtis

      August 15, 2015 at 4:47 AM

      Roger
      @ your thoughtful & thought provoking message on/ofJune 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM
      AWwwwwwwwwwwwww what a shame. What a big disappointment. It’s like love’s labor lost or, is it the lost labor of love? Remember!! NEVER QUIT!! It’s better to go down standing up for something right than not to stand up for anything. Like I said before, A good man who does nothing is a man good for nothing. Ain’t no doubt about it, You, Henry. & Toland are good men & I KNOW you will keep trying. i’m rootin fer ya!!! :D

       
  2. palani

    June 14, 2015 at 9:59 PM

    Recommended reading: “Suing Judges: A Study of Judicial Immunity” by Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku

     
    • Colin

      June 15, 2015 at 11:41 PM

      This actually appears to be a serious treatise! Your past comments had lead me to expect more gibberish. I suspect it’s a bit outdated, and not exclusively about the American legal system, but even so someone interested in the subject of judicial immunity could find a much worse starting point.

      Does it say anything you find relevant to the current discussion?

       
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 4:55 AM

        Colin,
        There are many “United States” e.g., The United States of Brazil.
        United States (disambiguation) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        The United States is a common name for the United States of America, … U.S.A.,
        Canada, The Bahamas, and other neighbouring countries; The United States of …
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_(disambiguation) – 63k – Cached – Similar Pages

         
      • Lance Pearce

        August 4, 2015 at 6:43 PM

        Colin,
        @ This actually appears to be a serious treatise!
        But will your “peers” agree? Sometimes what something appears to be,is anything but that. :-) D

         
    • palani

      June 16, 2015 at 6:42 AM

      @ Colin “Does it say anything you find relevant to the current discussion?”
      Glad you asked.

      “… it is required in order for immunity to attach that the judge must have been performing a judicial act or must have been acting judicially. The expressions ‘acting judicially’ or ‘judicial act’ as normally used in contradistinction to ‘acting ministerially’ or ‘ministerial act’ Judicial immunity applies only in respect of the judicial functions of a judge, as is evident from the discussions in the preceding chapter. The necessary corollary of this is that there is no protection for the performance of ministerial acts. In Ferguson v. Earl of Kinnoull, Lord Campbell referred to the general proposition that public functionaries appointed to act ministerially are liable to an action at the suit of anyone who suffers from their breach of duty.

      There seems no reason why the refusal to do a ministerial act by a person who has certain judicial functions should not subject him to an action … the refusal to do the ministerial act is as little within the scope of his function as judge as the act where his jurisdiction is exceeded. In the act beyond his jurisdiction, he has ceased to be a judge. As to the ministerial act, which may be initatory to a judicial proceeding, he is not yet clothed with the judicial character.

      Because immunity is not available in respect of purely ministerial acts, the distinction between judicial and ministerial acts assumes far greater importance than would otherwise be the case. However, the precise meaning of the term ‘judicial act’ has proved elusive both to judges and commnentators, evoking endless controversies. It is probably better left well alone. Nevertheless, the concept is so fundamental to the immunity of judges that it cannot be avoided. The types of functions that judges may be called upon to perform may be classified broadly as judicial, administrative, and ministerial.

      It has been said that ministerial acts do not attract immunity. What, then, is a ministerial act? The distinction between judicial acts or functions and ministerial acts or functions appears to be well defined. The major charactieristic of a minsterial act or function is that no exercise of discretion or judgment is normally involved. Thus it was said by Wolfe J. in State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis that a ministerial act is one which ‘a person performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority … without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the acts being done’. The corollary to the absence of discretion or judgment is that, given the necessary conditions, the authority concerned is obliged to adopt only one course of action. Mandamus will typically be available to compel the performance of the duty in a particular way.

      Although there seems to be a clear distinction between judicial and ministerial acts, the contrary is the position with respect to judicial and ‘administrative’ acts. Commentators disagree concerning the possibilities of distinguishing between the two. Three broad approaches appear. Some consider that there is no such distinction. According to Jennings, ‘ it is quite impossible to draw a distinction between a “judicial” and “administrative” functions in terms of the nature or substance of the functions actually exercised by the courts and the administrative authorities in this country’. A second approach, which seems to tread the middle ground, is that no distinction exists, at least not in precise terms. The third approach recognizes a clear distinction.

      As a proponent of the third approach, Wade explained that a judicial act or decision involves the administration of ‘law’. The judges discretion is a judicial discretion which must conform to a norm, however indefinable, and it is accordingly liable to review on appeal. Administrative acts or functions, on the other hand, involve the administration of ‘policy’. The discretion exercised is merely the administrators own idea of expediency, and is incapable of being declared wrong in law by any higher authority. Gordon expressed similar views. A judicial tribunal, according to him, is one which administers justice in the sense of ‘law’ – i.e. legal rights and liabilities imposed by statute or long settled principles. A judicial tribunal always looks for some law to guide it. An ‘administrative’ tribunal bases its decision, not on legal rights and liabilities, but on policy and expediency. Within its province, it is a law unto itself.

       
    • palani

      June 16, 2015 at 8:24 AM

      It seems a judicial actor is capable of judicial acts, ministerial acts or administrative acts. Judicial acts involve themselves with fitting facts to law. When seated in the gallery behind the bar and an order from the court comes down to you to 1) remove your sunglasses, 2) remove a toothpick, 3) obey the instructions of the bailiff to stand or sit or 4) remove a baseball cap is that order judicial, ministerial or administrative? The facts might be self-evident but the law seems to be lacking to command you obey any (quasi)order of this nature.

       
      • Adask

        June 16, 2015 at 12:26 PM

        The words “adMINISTrative” and “MINISTerial” seem sufficient similar in their roots that they might be synonymous.

         
      • Roger

        June 16, 2015 at 4:59 PM

        Both “administrate” and “minister” are derived from the Latin root “minister”, meaning servant.

        This makes sense given the earlier excerpt by palani:

        “Thus it was said by Wolfe J. in State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis that a ministerial act is one which ‘a person performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority … without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the acts being done’. The corollary to the absence of discretion or judgment is that, given the necessary conditions, the authority concerned is obliged to adopt only one course of action.”

         
      • Allen Curtis

        August 15, 2015 at 4:58 AM

        palani,
        @ Law is masculine and equity is feminine.
        wow! I am losing it !! SOooooo the alleged defendant asks; Your Honor! Is this a feminine or a masculine case?

         
  3. Henry

    June 14, 2015 at 10:51 PM

    The term “non-judicial act” seems a bit vague.

    It could apply to an act that can be judicial under the right circumstance but is made “non-judicial” by a lack of jurisdiction (because jurisdiction is an essential element of all things judicial).

    Or “non-judicial act” could mean an act that isn’t judicial under any circumstances, due to its inherent qualities.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 15, 2015 at 1:39 AM

      Henry,
      @ The term “non-judicial act” seems a bit vague “It could apply to an act that can be judicial under the right circumstance but is made “non-judicial” by a lack of jurisdiction (because jurisdiction is an essential element of all things judicial).”

      Originally,Jurisdiction was comprised of THREE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS. Any one of the THREE missing, or ignored, meant NO JURISDICTION. Today, there are only TWO “essential” elements required, AND ONCE AGAIN, it’s because, as the Courts SAY, due to the MERGER of “law & equity and the DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW ” !! The cases SAYING THIS have been presented REPEATEDLY. How can you FORGET so QUICKLY? In essence, IF ANYBODY CARES, here is a result you will get because of the discarded THIRD essential element.> “Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power. “due to the merger of law and equity, and the “development” of the law, [A]t this stage in the development of the law one may doubt that the distinction, the third element serves any useful purpose.” AND, The three Judges also said,

      “The notion of mere judicial error rising to the level of an act “in excess of jurisdiction” has been the subject of scholarly criticism. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Some Problems of Equity 298-305 (1950); Dan B. Dobbs, Trial Court Error as an Excess of Jurisdiction, 43 Texas L.Rev. 854, 869-872 (1965); Doug Rendleman, More on Void Orders, 7 Ga. L.Rev. 246, 274 (1973). These and other commentators are of the view that much of the confusion between judicial error and acts “in excess of jurisdiction” arises from ancient limitations imposed upon the jurisdiction of equity courts. These concepts are now largely of historical interest only, given the merger of law and equity into one form of action.”

       
  4. Spade Koolie

    June 15, 2015 at 3:32 AM

    Re: THREE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS COMPRISING JURISDICTION (originally)
    REYNOLDS v. STOCKTON.
    140 U.S. 254 (1891)
    No. 289. Supreme Court of United States.
    268 “Jurisdiction may be defined to be the right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case. To constitute this there are three essentials: First, the court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; second, the proper parties must be present; and third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue.”

    Since the 3rd essential element is NOW discarded, the point decided, the decision the Court renders, is whatever turns the Court’s crank & this is backed up by the Court’s Contempt POWER, e.g.> “Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power.” < The 3 Judge panel Unanimously agreed the lower court had the contempt power to enforce its made without authority order. GET IT?
    Also, dig this, "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."
    ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.

    Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."

     
  5. Justaven

    June 15, 2015 at 11:34 PM

    This has me thinking of judges who hold more than one judge ship at a time when prohibited by law.
    I like this line of thought being explored here.

     
  6. Colin

    June 15, 2015 at 11:42 PM

    I’m therefore a beneficiary of the express, charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas”

    The Constitution of the State of Texas is not an “express, charitable trust.” It’s a constitution.

    administrative law violates the concept of separation of powers

    “Administrative law” is typically just executive-branch agencies exercising their delegated powers. I’d be interested in reading the article you summarized, but it sounds to me like it’s making the point that administrative law exercises elements of the various branches of government. So for example when the CFTC sets up an administrative law court, it’s acting a little like the judicial branch and exercising power granted to it by the legislative branch, in pursuit of its function as an organ of the executive branch. Nothing about that is unconstitutional, which is why you can’t find any explicit constitutional language, treatises, cases, or other sources making that case.

    Your argument that admin law violates the separation of powers is creative, but it fails for at least one reason: the powers are still separated. Nothing in the constitution says an executive branch agency can’t set up a court to administer its own operations, especially using power granted to it by the legislature. It would be unconstitutional for the CFTC to take over the district courts, for example, but not for them to set up their own internal courts to administer CFTC operations.

    But your email makes me realize that, if my notions about administrative law are correct, we can only be dragged into an administrative court with our express or implied consent. If so, being subject to administrative law is a voluntary act. We can each say Yes, or perhaps No, depending on our personal preference.

    Your notions are not correct. Administrative law isn’t some unconstitutional blending of the three branches. Generally it’s just executive agencies exercising their delegated powers. Some administrative courts may actually require the consent of those who come before them, but not all of them.

    The rest of your post is more speculation piled on speculation: you assume something that is not true, then use it as the basis for believing something else that isn’t actually true, then use that as the basis for believing something else that isn’t actually true, and so on ad infinitum (or ad absurdum?).

    Again, all of this is conjectural. More, it’s only a theory that I’ve conjured up in the last few minutes. It’s not be relied on.

    Good advice. The difference between administrative and non-administrative courts isn’t what a judge does from one moment to the next, or whether the litigants have a driver’s license, or any such nonsense. The courts are different. An administrative law court is one that operates within a particular agency’s jurisdiction, helping administer its affairs. Standard judicial courts are established as a separate branch of government, neither controlled nor operating solely within the jurisdiction of a single executive agency. The difference is not hard to discern in practice. Even googling the concepts would have told you that much.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 16, 2015 at 12:26 AM

      @ The Constitution of the State of Texas is not an “express, charitable trust.” It’s a constitution.
      A DIME can also be called 10 cents, or, two nickels too. Ain’t that right?

       
  7. Spade Koolie

    June 16, 2015 at 12:23 AM

    Dear Colin,
    Once again, WHY do we have Courts of NO RECORD? What is the purpose of such a Court? IF you do not answer, I will know you think of these questions as,TROLL questions, and this is WHY you ONCE AGAIN will not respond. I just thought you may have NOT seen the other times you were asked these questions, i.e., e.g., What is the purpose of a, Court NOT OF RECORD.??

     
  8. Spade Koolie

    June 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM

    Adask,
    @ The words “adMINISTrative” and “MINISTerial” seem sufficient similar in their roots that they might be synonymous.
    These concepts are now largely of historical interest only, given the merger of law and equity into one form of action.”

     
  9. Adask

    June 16, 2015 at 4:51 PM

    For whatever it’s worth, the FORMS of law and equity have been merged, but the two kinds of “law” have not. It used to be that if someone was trying to sue you in equity, the forms and procedures used to sue in equity were so different from the forms and procedures used to sue at law were so different, you knew instantly whether you were being sued in equity or at law.

    However, the Supreme Court (among other authorities) declared that the forms and procedures of law and the forms and procedures of equity be merged into a single set of forms and procedures. One size fits all. The express reason for combining these forms and procedure was to make it easier for the public to sue in court because they only had one set of forms and procedures to learn.

    But the result of combing two separate systems of forms and procedure into a single, unified system has been to leave most people without a clue as to whether they’re suing at law or in equity. Most assume they’re suing at law, but I suspect that virtually all modern lawsuits are conducted in equity.

    the differences between the two “jurisidctions” is enormous. At law, everyone is bound by the law including the judge. In equity, the judge is bound only by his alleged “conscience” and he can rule any way he wants, any time he wants, for any reason he wants. If the judge in equity doesn’t like your race, your political affiliation, your stand or living he can exercise his “discretion” and rule against you without regard to the law. This judicial discretion lays a foundation for judicial caprice, corruption, seemingly irrational decisions, and making law by judges. I suspect that these anomalies flow from cases being tried in equity rather than at law.

    As I understand their fundamental differences, suits at law are ultimately based on legal title to property at issue. Suits in equity are based on equitable title or even no title at all. I suspect that by combining the forms and procedures of law with those of equity, the courts have intentionally concealed the fact that, today, thanks to our use of Federal Reserve Notes virtually none of us have legal title to our property and therefore we have no standing at law to sue in courts of law. Instead, we think we’re at law when we may really be in equity. So long as we retain that ignorance, the courts are free to railroad us almost any way they like.

     
    • Colin

      June 16, 2015 at 9:33 PM

      But the result of combing two separate systems of forms and procedure into a single, unified system has been to leave most people without a clue as to whether they’re suing at law or in equity.

      They can find out pretty easily if they want to. One way is to check with someone who understands the difference (i.e., a lawyer). Or they can look up the difference for themselves in the library. A very basic case search tool, even the free ones like Google scholar, makes it relatively simple to see whether a particular cause of action sounds in law or equity. And to find out the general rules for distinguishing between them. For example, in general, an action asking for money sounds in law, whereas an action asking the court to compel the defendant to do or not do something sounds in equity. There are exceptions; understanding them requires a little bit of effort. Have you put that effort in?

      In equity, the judge is bound only by his alleged “conscience” and he can rule any way he wants, any time he wants, for any reason he wants.

      This is false, and obviously false. Appellate courts would never hear or overturn rulings on equitable claims (which you pretend are most claims) if this were true. You’re making up a rule; why? Why not just make an effort to learn the facts, instead of inventing them? Isn’t it false witness?

      As I understand their fundamental differences…

      You do not understand the fundamental differences. You’ve invented some facts which are not true, and assuming them to be true apparently gives you some degree of comfort in your understanding. But your imagination is not the same thing as the real world, and the differences you imagine to be true are not the differences that are actually true.

      today, thanks to our use of Federal Reserve Notes virtually none of us have legal title to our property and therefore we have no standing at law to sue in courts of law

      This, again, is completely false. Even a little bit of effort would have shown that to you. Suits at law almost always turn on issues of monetary compensation, which of course often come down to “Federal Reserve Notes.”

      How did you come to your understanding? What sources did you read? What studying did you do? From here, it seems like you just made it up as you went along. I know you’re a religious man, Alfred; isn’t that false witness? To pretend to know something and claim to understand it, without actually attempting to find out if your fantasy is true at all? It’s not a rhetorical question, I’m actually interested in how you see the ethics of the situation.

       
      • Adask

        June 16, 2015 at 11:06 PM

        Long story. It’s the result of 33 years of trying to make sense of the legal system. I never claim to have perfect knowledge, but if push comes to shove, I have interesting arguments. Sometimes that’s enough.

        You don’t understand money. Virtually no one does. And you can bet that no one is going to teach the truth about money in any public university.

        There’s an ancient principle when dealing with money (gold, silver). Whoever owns title a particular item of money (say one ounce of gold) is entitled to receive and own title to whatever property the item on of money is used to buy. Real money is a medium of exchange. Exchange of what? Exchange of both legal and equitable titles to a property.

        But “money” is dug up out of the ground and SPENT into circulation.

        Federal Reserve Notes, on the other hand, are LOANED into circulation. I doubt that many people will deny that fact. If FRNs are LOANED into circulation, who owns them? Not you. Not me. The lender (the Federal Reserve and/or the federal government) owns LEGAL title to the FRNs that are loaned into circulation. The lender will retain legal title to the particular FRN (they have serial numbers, unlike real money (gold/silver)) until the loan on the particular FRN is repaid.

        Because the FRNs are loaned into circulation, they become trust instruments where the Federal Reserve retains legal title and equitable title (right of possession and use) goes to whoever has a particular FRN in his wallet.

        Given that ancient principle that “the man who owns the money, owns whatever the money is used to buy,” the man who owns legal title to the FRNs gets legal title to whatever the FRNs are used to purchase. The man who owns the equitable title to possess and use the FRN is entitled to receive only the equitable title to whatever property the FRN is used to purchase.

        If you only purchased equitable title to whatever property you purchased with FRNs, and a case comes’ up to dispute the ownership of that property, the case will be decided in a court of equity because the only title available to either of the litigants is equitable title.

        Money is a medium of exchange (of both legal and equitable titles). FRNs are a medium of transfer (of only equitable titles).

        Back about A.D. 1993 I started accepting credit card orders for my magazine subscriptions. Before I was allowed to do so, I had to be inspected by a representative of the credit card industry. During the course of my inspection, the lady from the credit card industry volunteered that every credit card order is processed through the Federal Reserve. I didn’t ask any questions that might’ve solicited that comment. She just made an offhand remark which I both remembered and believed to be true. I haven’t verified, but I still believe she told the truth.

        If it is true, WHY does every credit card purchase goes through the Federal Reserve? Doesn’t the Federal Reserve have anything better to do with their time than to track every time I used my MasterCard to buy gasoline, toothpaste and copies of Playboy? Why would they want to keep track of every item that I purchase? I can’t see any reason–unless, by virtue of loaning all FRNs into circulation, the Federal Reserve is entitled to legal title to everything purchased with their FRNs. I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that the Fed is keeping a list of all of the properties purchased with the FRNs that the loaned out and therefore still own because they own legal title to those properties.

        If my suspicions are correct, you don’t own legal title to any of your property that you’ve purchased with FRNs. You only own equitable title those properties. If push comes to shove a court of equity will decide who gets “your” property–and it might not be you.

        If you want to have some fun, look into American history and find out what the original dollar sign was. It was a capital “U” superimposed over a capital “S”. The “U” and the “S” were derived from “United States”. Over time, they deleted the curve at the bottom of the “U” and wound up with a dollar sign composed of TWO vertical lines superimposed over a capital “S”. I believe that two vertical lines over the capital “S” signifies real money–gold or silver and a medium of exchange–by means of which you can acquire legal title to property.

        Compare that to a modern dollar sign which has ONE vertical line over a capital “S”. I believe the one vertical line over the capital “S” signifies legal tender and fiat currency which are a medium of transfer of only equitable title.

        Virtually all of your property has been purchased with FRNs. You only own the equitable title to that property. You have a right of possession, but not real ownership. You’re not a free man. You’re a sharecropper. Not much better than a slave on the global, banking plantation.

        There are some exceptions. First, legal title can be moved by descent. If your grandfather bought some land with lawful money back prior to A.D. 1933 and perhaps even prior to A.D. 1968, he would own both legal and equitable title to that land. If he died and left it to your father, your father would acquire both legal and equitable titles to the land. If you father died and left the land to you, you would acquire both legal and equitable title.

        But if your father or grandfather ever sold the land for FRNs, they’d lose legal title to Federal Reserve. You might buy that land yourself, one day for sentimental reasons, but the legal title would be with Federal Reserve and probably out of your reach.

        A second exception is intellectual property. I actually own both legal and equitable titles to whatever I write or say on my radio shows. I write, therefore I am. You would also own legal and equitable titles to whatever you books, articles, music, or photos that you create. The act of creation gives you legal and equitable title to whatever is created. I believe that one of the reasons that intellectual property is such a hot topic in the domestic and international law is that those who create music, books, artwork, etc. have legal title to their creations and therefore standing a Law if the ownership or possession of those creations ever comes to court.

        I strongly suspect that the “system” doesn’t want anyone to have standing at Law; I suspect that they want us all in equity or perhaps administrative law. If so, that may explain the government’s war against the family farmer (who may have inherited legal title to his land) and the government’s concern over “intellectual property”.

        The kind of money you use will not only determine what you “own” (or think you own). It will also determine whether your have rights at law or only in equity. There is much more to money than mere counting.

         
      • Colin

        June 16, 2015 at 11:26 PM

        That’s great, but it has nothing to do with whether you understand the distinction between law and equity. There’s a reason you can’t find any kind of support for your speculation: it’s just speculation, and it’s completely wrong. Even a tiny bit of effort would show that. For example, look up cases dealing with legal title and you’ll find plenty declaring that the plaintiff or defendant has legal title to the property in question–without ever stopping to consider whether they bought it with “FRNs.” Because the currency is irrelevant to the facts, if not to your fantasies.

         
      • Toland

        June 17, 2015 at 12:10 AM

        that ancient principle that “the man who owns the money, owns whatever the money is used to buy,”

        Would you say this principle applies to every purchase made with borrowed currency, including for example borrowed gold coins, or is there something special about FRNs in this regard?

         
      • Adask

        June 17, 2015 at 2:52 PM

        I’d say that it definitely applies to stolen currency and it is at least theoretically possible for the principle to apply to all borrowered currency.

        If I lend you a pen, and you use that pen, do you own that pen or do I? Yes, you might have the equitable right to use and possess the pen, but so long as I loaned it to you, it’s still my pen and my ink. Suppose you use my pen and my ink to write a novel that makes a lot of money, do think it would be possible for me to make a claim on some of the proceeds of that novel because you used my pen and my ink to write it?

        Seems like an interesting but probably dumb question, right?

        But, what I loaned you the FRNs you used to run a business. Insofar as I loaned you that currency and you used it to make a profit, do you think I could charge you an income tax on the profit you’d earned based on your use of my FRNs? Do you think it’s possible that the Federal Reserve helped create your obligation to pay income taxes based on your use of FRNs owned by and borrowed from the Fed, rather than your use of lawful money (gold/silver)?

         
      • palani

        June 17, 2015 at 6:43 AM

        @ Colin “That’s great, but it has nothing to do with whether you understand the distinction between law and equity. ”
        The distinction between law and equity is simple. Law is masculine and equity is feminine. Law is established when your face is bearded and equity is established if your face lacks facial hair.

         
      • Toland

        June 18, 2015 at 1:03 AM

        But, what I loaned you the FRNs you used to run a business. Insofar as I loaned you that currency and you used it to make a profit, do you think I could charge you an income tax on the profit you’d earned based on your use of my FRNs? Do you think it’s possible that the Federal Reserve helped create your obligation to pay income taxes based on your use of FRNs owned by and borrowed from the Fed, rather than your use of lawful money (gold/silver)?

        It is possible for a lender to charge such a fee for using their currency, but the present situation seems different. Through the magic of fractional-reserve banking, the US dollar is created out of thin air as a unit of account (though not literally printed) by the commercial banks that loan this currency into circulation. However, the income tax is paid to someone else: the IRS. Are you saying the Federal Reserve System’s banks charge an “income tax” fee for using their currency, but make it payable to the IRS? Why would they do that?

        More significantly, the borrower is normally who’s responsible for any fees attached to a loan. However in this case you’re positing that a third-party payee (e.g. a wage earner), who didn’t contract with the lending bank, somehow becomes answerable for the lender’s “income tax” fee simply by transacting in the borrowed currency. How does this transfer of responsibility to a third-party happen?

         
    • Les Moore

      June 25, 2015 at 8:02 PM

      1.Colin, I also am curious as to your thoughts about these “Courts of No record”. My past experience has been, everything given in support of my stand/position is 100% ignored including current STATE S.Ct. cases backing my position. I venture to say others have experienced the same thing & we both know there is NO APPEAL to what a Court of no record does. To me, this is open public knowledge of DESPOTISM.

      2. @ your cite is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citations.
      Do these “Law classes” you recommend teach HOW to know HOW to understand what you said?
      So, we will at least know what not to cite as such?

      3. Will these Law classes also teach us to know what we can depend on to use as Authoritative & not quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citation?

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 28, 2015 at 7:13 AM

      Alfred Adask,
      @ With all the jokes you tell, you are singularly insensitive to the humor of others.
      How do you “KNOW” this? What makes YOU so sure?

       
      • Adask

        June 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM

        Why do you ask?

        “What makes YOU so sure” that I was “so sure” when I made that comment? “What makes YOU so sure” that I wasn’t merely making a casual remark?

        “How do you KNOW” that I wasn’t merely making a casual remark?

        How can I know that “Russell Arms” isn’t just another pseudonym for Les Fuchs, Pesky Nat, Nat, Happy Campbell and Les Moore?

         
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 3:05 AM

      Adask,
      @ Les, I don’t know how many names you’ve used on this blog. I’d say it’s at least 20. I think you tend to discredit yourself by using multiple names.
      20 is about right,but,probably more.However, WE are not wanting ANY CREDIT FOR ANYTHING. As far as “Les Fuchs” goes, he/she is not in our group. Telephone calls & E-mails can accomplish a lot, maybe to our own detriment. All ya gotta do is delete any comments you don’t like. Ain’t that right? We KNOW you most certainly CAN do this because in the past, YOU have, even after they were posted. They passed the moderation point/level got posted, the later, deleted. Dat D troof 2.

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 3:19 AM

      Adask,
      @ How can I know that “Russell Arms” isn’t just another pseudonym for Les Fuchs, Pesky Nat, Nat, Happy Campbell and Les Moore?
      Roger, OR, Henry, can assure you if ever there is the slightest doubt in your mind. They have tried to make you aware of this in some of their comments on THIS THREAD. You are leaning both of them frustrated, to put it mildly. D

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 7:35 PM

      Re: MARTIAL LAW. Under Martial Law, The States are divided into REGIONAL AREAS Just as U.S.S.R. is divided into regions. This IS now, “the state of, this state’.

      1. The term “martial law” carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various
      ways by different people and at different times. Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 66 S.Ct. 606,
      611,615; 327 U.S. 304; 90 L.Ed. 688.

      2. “When the citizen is governed by the military power, he is not governed by the soldier’s code of military law,but he is said to be to be governed by martial law; and this law is perfectly distinct and entirely different from military law, to which soldiers are subject.”
      Griffin v. Wilcox, (1863), 21 Indiana, 370, page 376 Supreme Court of Indiana

      3. President Andrew Johnson, said,”All this legislative machinery of martial law,
      military coercion,and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other”.

      4. The cry for “Public Safety” goes hand in hand with the types of necessities claimed to be authorized as martial rule under martial law. Remember, Russia has Courts & Prosecutors & JURIES too.

      5. Under Martial Law, The States are divided into REGIONAL AREAS Just as U.S.S.R. is divided into regions. This IS now, “the state of, this state’.

      I have MUCH MORE Information on this Martial Law RULE that I deem VALID but I cannot post it all at one time & as to WHY, it should be obvious.

       
    • Dea Lawman

      July 8, 2015 at 5:46 AM

      Dear Alfred,
      I don’t know where to put the following information & I think my computer is about to go K-Poot, so I will place it here.You may already be familiar with the following, but I don’t know. Anyway I guarantee you if you are not, this will be revealing.

      Check out the “National Security Act of 1947”. This should help show why we are where we are, i.e., a state of perpetual emergency & so says Admiral Gene Larocque.

      The Secret Government PBS 1987 Bill Moyers – YouTube
      Aug 2, 2012 … We need more Bill Moyers out there. No one in the … Ollie North was not dumb to
      government law. … 40 years going, nothing’s changed Bill.

       
  10. Spade Koolie

    June 16, 2015 at 7:49 PM

    Adask,
    @ , thanks to our use of Federal Reserve Notes
    “Paper Money” is authorized by those “WAR POWER ACTS”. I think I am right when I say these Federal Reserve Notes ARE, “Military Scrip”. This also FITS in with, Martial Law RULE. There ARE different degrees of Martial Law Rule. The degree depends on the “necessity” I received the following from an acquaintance who “cannot” post on your blog, but I think what follows FITS.
    FROM Sundance Mechanical, N.M. Supreme Court,
    “There are three jurisdictional essentials necessary to the validity of every judgment: jurisdiction of parties, jurisdiction of subject matter and power or authority to decide the particular matter presented.” Heckathorn v. Heckathorn, 77 N.M. 369, 371, 423 P.2d 410, 412 (1967); In re Field’s Estate, 40 N.M. 423, 427, 60 P.2d 945, 947 (1936). See also Elwess v. Elwess, 73 N.M. 400, 404, 389 P.2d 7, 9 (1964); State v. Patten, 41 N.M. 395, 398, 69 P.2d 931, 933 (1937).

    BUT, the S.Ct. also said > “Jurisdiction over the subject matter” is commonly treated as a unitary topic, see, e.g., T. Occhialino, Walden’s Civil Procedure in New Mexico at I-3 to I-8 (2d ed. 1988), and at this stage in the development of the law one may doubt that the distinction serves any useful purpose.

    IS (NOW) COMMONLY TREATED AS A UNITARY TOPIC. (WHY?) > and at this stage in the development of the law one may doubt that the distinction serves any useful purpose.

    Unitary, per the Government, is defined as, of or relating to a system of government in which the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of each state in a body of states are vested in a central authority.

    @ the courts are free to railroad us almost any way they like.
    I UNDERSTAND THAT !!

     
  11. Spade Koolie

    June 16, 2015 at 10:28 PM

    whoops. I left this out. > The Court in, Elwess v. Elwess said, “The word “jurisdiction” is a term of large and comprehensive import. It includes jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the parties, and power or authority to decide the particular matters presented, and the lack of any essential is fatal to the judgment. In re Field’s Estate, 40 N.M. 423, 60 P.2d 945; State v. Patten, 41 N.M. 395, 69 P.2d 931; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 1964, N.M., 388 P.2d 187.

    LATER The Court said, “The modern view is generally to confine jurisdiction to its ( 2, not, 3) essentials, which are jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. Rendleman, supra, at 274. Our Supreme Court has also noted that, today, “`[j]urisdiction over the subject matter’ is commonly treated as a unitary topic,” placing in doubt the continued utility of a third category of jurisdiction, over the particular subject matter, where the court exceeds its grant of jurisdiction over the subject matter generally. Sundance Mechanical & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 109 N.M. 683, 687, 789 P.2d 1250, 1254 (1990). “[A]t this stage in the development of the law one may doubt that the distinction serves any useful purpose.” Id.

    I take the above last statement to mean, that the 3rd essential element does not serve any useful purpose, which also means, NOT FATAL to the judgment, which also means, & as the Court said, “Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power.”

     
    • Les Moore

      June 25, 2015 at 5:17 AM

      Spade Koolie
      @ June 16, 2015 at 10:28 PM
      @ “…… and the lack of any essential is fatal to the judgment.”
      NOT ANYMORE !! Oops I jumped the gun. You say why in your last paragraph.

       
      • Adask

        June 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM

        Les, I don’t know how many names you’ve used on this blog. I’d say it’s at least 20. I think you tend to discredit yourself by using multiple names. But, if that’s what you want to do, it’s alright with me. As you know, I can stop you from using a particular name, but I can’t stop you from taking a new name. In any case, I don’t mind you talking to others under whatever “nom du jour” you choose to use. However, you’re pushing the envelope when you start making comments in one name and then responding to those comments in another of your own “noms”. Please try to confine your creativity to using only one name per week.

         
      • moon

        June 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM

        Al,

        Are you discriminating against those with multiple personalities? Could it be that some people need more avenues of expression to be fully comprehended? Just wondering.

        One track moon mind

         
  12. Spade Koolie

    June 18, 2015 at 12:45 AM

    palani,
    @ Law is masculine and equity is feminine.
    palani, you seem to be “Miss Equity” in the original meaning of equity, because equity originally meant, >The quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: I believe I will be in a Court of Equity when “Judgment Day” arrives. Fact is, ALL people will be. :-)

     
    • palani

      June 18, 2015 at 6:41 AM

      @ D.B.Cooper ” I believe I will be in a Court of Equity when “Judgment Day” arrives”

      From Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1981 (R):305-306

      The General Editor has received the following letter which he has had some difficulty in answering. Any suggestions will be gladly received.

      First of all let me send you my best compliment and wishes for the new Oxford Journal. I would like to take the opportunity to ask you a question that could be a trivial one from your point of view. In any case I should deeply appreciate it if you would give the matter your consideration.

      As you certainly know any continental lawyer involved in comparative studies between English and French or Spanish or Italian law is in a sort of unpleasant semantic difficulty when, writing in his own language , he has to put the correct definite article before the expression ‘common law’ (untranslatable), being in doubt as to its gender. I am aware that to an Englishman
      which is at his disposal, the problem is totally unrewarding. But the Italian, French and (on this point) Spanish languages ignore the neuter. So French lawyers use the feminine article (‘la common law’) maybe remembering Pollack’s expression ‘Our Lady the Common Law’: Spanish prefer the masculine ( ‘el common law): Italiana, as always, go as they please and write ‘il common law’ or ‘la common law’.

      Since I believe that a good answer to the question could come from setting aside any theoretical or gallant argument, and turning to the direct way of thinking of English lawyers, I am wondering if you could let me know what you feel on the issue, and in particular, if you have a feminine or a masculine of the ‘common law’.

      With many, many thanks,
      Yours sincerely

      Universita Di Palermo Prof Giovanni Criscuoli
      Facolta Di Giurisprudenza

       
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 10:27 AM

        palani,
        Dear Heart. You apparently are not aware of the Judge I believe we will all meet,some day,face to face. It’s really easy for me to understand, because since I also believe this Judge created the Universe in 6 days, can you imagine what he can & will do in 1,000 years? :-)

        With many, many thanks,
        Yours sincerely
        D.B. Cooper & ALL Associates

         
  13. Cody

    June 18, 2015 at 1:39 AM

    I’m starting to think the Hahvaahd grad with the name of an intestinal organ is full of it. I haven’t seen him cite any authority for what he states are the facts. Basically, he says “I graduated from an Ivy League school and I took my spankings well. Therefore I’m always right.”

    I’m sticking with Al. He’s not perfect, but his “mere” experiences have helped me win a couple of decent court battles. I defeated my hex-wife’s “community property” claim against my retirement. I also stop a foreclosure in Florida on my deceased father’s mortgage.

    So, thanks to that which I learned from Al, and his example of perseverance, I get to keep 100% of my military retirement and my dad’s estate.

    So, whom have you helped take their stand against the system, there… Mr. Turdbag?

     
    • Henry

      June 18, 2015 at 3:23 AM

      Cody,

      Apparently you didn’t get the memo that recourse to personal attacks was busted a while ago and is now generally recognized as a tacit admission that one’s rational argument sucks.

      You’ll no doubt be quick on the uptake in this matter and not emulate the pointless inanities of a certain many-times-banned buffoon who’s been going poo-poo in these threads for years in vain anticipation of a personal change of diapers, powdering, and promotion to Boy Wonder by Alfred which never arrive.

       
      • Toland

        June 18, 2015 at 5:12 AM

        Lol, this can only refer to the many-times-banned numbnuts who, in the course of a multi-year career at this blog, complied a sizable oeuvre of babbling irrelevance using several dozen disposable usernames but earned lasting fame, and a memorable sendoff by Alfred, for trolling published under the moniker Les Fuchs.

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 5:13 AM

        Henry,
        @ , and promotion to Boy Wonder by Alfred which never arrive.
        Do you mean never to arrive for you? You are not jealous are ya? :-) D
        I am surprised that you,or Roger,or Toland, have not said that Les Fuchs is now posting under the username of, Cody, AND Me, lil ol Spade Koolie.
        P.S. Are ya ever gonna tell us buffoons what Psalm 8 means?

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 10:58 PM

        @Henry
        @June 18, 2015 at 3:23 AM
        Lesley/Leslie certainly has enormous LINGERING power over you & yours. Why dat?

         
      • Roger

        June 20, 2015 at 6:34 PM

        Credit where credit’s due, guys.

        For one thing, at least Les Fuchs isn’t yet another clone in the public-relations astroturf army that’s overrun the internet in all things political. He seems to genuinely believe the positions he’s taking here.

        Secondly, if the real-life behavior of Les Fuchs is anything like his online persona, you gotta admit he has a certain amount of courage. Playing both holier-than-thou judgmental moralist and invincibly-ignorant village idiot at the same time is a hobby more dangerous than skydiving.

         
      • Toland

        June 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM

        Okay Roger, but your hyphenation of “invincibly ignorant” is a HUGE distraction for me.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 21, 2015 at 12:47 AM

        HEnrY,roGEr,TOLaNd,
        There ARE degrees of everything. Whoever cannot SEE through you 3 are not very bright, meaning where you really stand. You DO have much “worldly knowledge” especially in the “financial area” but when it comes to spiritual knowledge all 3 of you are phonier than a 3 Dollar Federal Reserve Note. ANYBODY can insert scriptures like you do,on occasion, & sometimes what you insert to make a point is true but more often than not, it’s the exact opposite of what you want people to think those scriptures mean. IF you 3 or anyone inserted a scripture that I DID NOT KNOW BETTER about, I would just simply say I don’t know & I’m sure there is much more I do not know than I do know. Anyway,MY priorities in & about life are a 180 from you & yours & it appears this applies to most other anim, excuse me, people, aka MANKIND. I personally believe that ALL 3 of you are inspired of Satan. I SAVED a lot of your messages because I ALSO saw that all 3 of you speak at times, with a FORKED TONGUE. The ONLY reason I can see as to why you are allowed to comment on this blog is to get your take on FINANCIAL MATTERS , NOT about SPIRITUAL.

         
      • Roger

        June 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM

        Right you are, Toland. What could I have been thinking when I put a hyphen there? I’ll be more grammatically careful from now on, to spare you further annoyance.

        By the way, I’m enjoying the browser add-on that Henry generously donated to readers of this blog at the other forum. While this thing is running, you can still see the location where the many-times-banned numbnuts Les Fuchs is babbling incoherently, shamelessly kissing someone’s ass, or pompously dispensing summary judgment on another commenter’s essential character and inner motives – but the actual text of the comment doesn’t display. Only the delusional mental midget’s (latest) username and the timestamp appear; below that is just a blank space. It’s actually quite funny.

        Unfortunately for the blog and most of its readers, the disruptive antics of the delusional mental midget remain visible to those without this browser add-on (which is not yet generally available), but that’s a problem for Alfred to deal with, or not.

        Lol, thanks again Henry.

         
      • Henry

        June 21, 2015 at 7:33 PM

        Roger, you’re welcome. I’m glad my efforts are of service. I understand how difficult it can be to not respond to a deliberately provocative troll. But responding only feeds the troll and lowers the usefulness of a thread (which is often the troll’s purpose). So to be sure one doesn’t take the bait, simply don’t read anything the loser has to say in the first place.

        The blacklist server shows there are already six people using the Fuchs Off™ add-on. Aside from you, Toland and myself, there are three others. I can’t tell who those others are because they haven’t commented on any WordPress affiliate since installing the add-on. So far they only appear as client_002, client_005 and client_006.

        When the add-on goes to beta, I’ll post it on GitHub (with a different name, of course) for general purpose use.

         
  14. Cody

    June 18, 2015 at 11:10 PM

    Oops. I resorted to questioning the man’s pedigree? I’m certainly going to hell now…

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 19, 2015 at 1:14 AM

      Cody,
      @ Oops. I resorted to questioning the man’s pedigree? I’m certainly going to hell now…
      We don’t know if Les, IS, Lesley, OR, Leslie. Roger & Henry undoubtedly know. I don’t. I believe it’s that surname, aka, last name they are attracted to.

       
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM

        We also don’t know if “Les” is “less” or if “Les” is “more”.

         
      • Ira Misteree

        June 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM

        @ We don’t know if Les, IS, Lesley, OR, Leslie. Roger & Henry undoubtedly know. I don’t. I believe it’s that surname, aka, last name they are attracted to.
        More or most people could care LESS. Who cares? I could care Less. I’m diffurnt tho than most R

         
  15. Spade Koolie

    June 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM

    @ We also don’t know if “Les” is “less” or if “Les” is “more”.
    It’s “more meaningful” or maybe not, as to what someone says & less important on “who” is saying it. There are other people who disagree, however.

     
  16. Cody

    June 21, 2015 at 10:24 PM

    Whatever. I’ll take Al over Colin, any day.

     
    • Adask

      June 21, 2015 at 11:17 PM

      Good choice. I’m sure I’d work for less money.

       
      • moon

        June 22, 2015 at 7:37 PM

        Well, actually, Al, I’ve used some of your speculations you say you can’t prove in the attempt to figure out what’s going on. Maybe some of us will come up with more tested results eventually.

        Hmmmmmm…Spade Koolie…interesting name.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 28, 2015 at 9:27 PM

        @ How can I know that “Russell Arms” isn’t just another pseudonym for Les Fuchs, Pesky Nat, Nat, Happy Campbell and Les Moore?
        IF there is any doubt, Roger, OR, Henry, OR, Toland can eliminate ANY possible doubt YOU may have. BUT ! I doubt there is ANY doubt on your part. I think you are being influenced at times by a SHREWD EVIL CONNIVING SPIRIT BEING to have SOME SO SURE OF YOURSELF THOUGHTS

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 5:11 AM

        Adask,
        @ Why do you ask?
        Kauz I ain’t got nuthin a yulse to do. I ask questions for no cause or reason. I just like to ask questions. Don’t ask me why. It turns me on. WHY? I dunno. It just do.Asking questions is my bag.

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 3:19 PM

        Adask,
        @ I don’t mind you talking to others under whatever “nom du jour” you choose to use.
        Really??? Then my/our “spiritual perception” is 000. Also, it’s odd that you refuse to allow certain messages to be posted by 2 or 3 of US, but do allow the SAME message to post by another one of US, i.e, e.g., “Comment awaiting Moderation” “disappears”. That SAME comment is sent via E-Mail to another “one of US” & you do allow it to be posted. Also, now, it appears you are taking into consideration where one of us “RESIDES” as to whether you will allow the message to be posted. WE do understand, excuse me/us, WE do comprehend that using one different “nom des jour” per week saves you from having to read & decide if the comment will or will not be posted, as, believe it or not, this does take you away from your bigger fish to fry activities.We DO respect & honor that request. To digress,You DO allow Henry, Roger, & Toland to slander, ridicule, mock & lie about some of us & then when we come back with a rebuke to anyone of the self professed MAN ANIMALS you say WE are starting a “personality conflict”. THEY DIDN’T??

         
  17. Eddy Kitts

    June 22, 2015 at 8:05 PM

    moon,
    WOW !!! Have sure missed ya. What is the latest info on your Court Case? Did you ever get an account number? :-) D
    Hey moon, who was the poster that Roger called ‘Swine” and you gently rebuked Roger for saying that? There IS a thread way back where Roger, Henry, & Toland, are turning on each other. I laughed heartily, Stick around. I am going to need your help. I believe you are a straight shooter.
    Sincerely,
    Eddy Kitts, aka Spade,Ted,Nat,Fred,Red, D B Cooper & about 40 MO aka iz zizs. All BELOVED !

     
    • moon

      June 23, 2015 at 4:48 PM

      Easy, Eddie, too much to keep up with…this is a learning experience for me. Hope you won’t screw it up. Keeping moon headed in the proper direction takes up most all my time.

       
      • Ira Misteree

        June 23, 2015 at 10:28 PM

        @ Easy, Eddie, too much to keep up with ………………………………………………………………..”
        ROFLMYIAO !! Btw re: tonight’s Radio show, This “statement” attributed to Robert Bork, that is taken as true. We need to KNOW WHO said it before it can be taken as true. E.g., IF LES SAID it, then we KNOW it is just a TROLL statement. Ain’t that RIGHT Roger, Toland, &, Henry?

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 3:23 AM

        moon,
        @ June 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM
        A thumbs up for you moon. :-) D

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 3:41 AM

        moon,
        @ Keeping moon headed in the proper direction takes up most all my time.
        moon did you miss that no spitting on the floor sign AGAIN? That’s what partying all night will do for ya. You still love to party huh? ok.

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM

        moon,
        @ Hmmmmmm…Spade Koolie…interesting name.
        Not even close to be as interesting as Les U no who, I mean, me. :-) D

         
      • Lance Pearce

        August 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM

        moon,
        @ One track moon mind.
        But moon!! You are not on an uphill track like a few people are! You are on a level track.

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 3:26 PM

        moon,
        @ Easy, Eddie, too much to keep up with…this is a learning experience for me. Hope you won’t screw it up
        One of US will for sure, sooner or later. It’s not meant to be that way, it’s because of the way SOME-ONE takes or perceives/SEES the meaning. How many times have you heard,> Well this IS the WAY I look at it. People & man animals, SEE some things different from other people.

         
  18. Ira Misteree

    June 22, 2015 at 11:23 PM

    moon,
    It is not this Spade Cooley. I don’t think so anyway. Then again, maybe he has come back to haint us.
    Spade Cooley – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Donnell Clyde Cooley (December 17, 1910 – November 23, 1969), better known
    as Spade Cooley, was an American Western swing musician, big band leader, …
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spade_Cooley – 87k – Cached – Similar Pages

     
    • moon

      June 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM

      Ira Misteree, see if you can post some music from this dude. It’s about time for another musical interlude, don’t you think?

      Al, got some more of your offbeat musical treasures coming up?

       
      • Ira Misteree

        June 23, 2015 at 10:35 PM

        moon,
        @ Ira Misteree, see if you can post some music from this dude
        Ask & you shall receive.
        Swinging Spade Cooley – YouTube
        Feb 14, 2010 … Here’s a clip of Spade Cooley and his band long before he beat his wife to a pulp
        in a drunken, jealous rage. Oklahoma born Donnell Clyde …
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHqrGwHgnAA – 254k – Cached – Similar Pages

        Sincerely, I R A Misteree, < not really.

         
      • moon

        June 24, 2015 at 10:18 AM

        Thanks. Sometimes it’s better to just enjoy the music and not get into an artists life. Some are rowdy.

         
      • Les Moore

        June 24, 2015 at 6:15 PM

        moon,
        @ @ Ira Misteree, see if you can post some music from this dude
        moon, I got a call from Ira. Said he could not come up with any Spade Cooley “Hot Rod Lincoln” material & he said you would know what he meant.

         
  19. Adask

    June 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM

    I’m taking lessons on how to simultaneously play the spoons and the kazoo. Should be ready for prime time sometime next Fall.

     
    • moon

      June 23, 2015 at 7:23 PM

      For that, you’ll need good rhythm and great teeth…a versatile tongue would hurt, either.

       
      • moon

        June 23, 2015 at 7:26 PM

        Oops, wouldn’t hurt. See, I’d never even attempt something so challenging with my tongue tethered the way it is.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 3:43 AM

        moon,
        @ Oops, wouldn’t hurt. See, I’d never even attempt something so challenging with my tongue tethered the way it is..
        moon, You are still very good at hair-lipping some people though. :-) D

         
      • Lance Pearce

        August 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM

        moon,
        @ Thanks. Sometimes it’s better to just enjoy the music and not get into an artists life. Some are rowdy.
        moon!! I did not know Henry,Roger, & Toland were musicians. Yes, I did know they were “artists”.

         
    • Les Moore

      June 25, 2015 at 8:49 PM

      @ Please try to confine your creativity to using only one name per week.
      If we like something we hear, we should not give the credit to someone we like for making the statement. What would we “FEEL” like if we later discovered that someone we did not like made the statement we liked? I am speaking specifically about, as YOU & Frank said, Robert Bork is given credit for that statement. I wish you had been INFLUENCED to read, in the past, comments made by Roger, Henry, AND, Toland. Then again, maybe you would COMPREHEND those comments 100% different than I DO. With ME, it appears you only LOOK for the most part on WHAT YOU CAN FIND FAULT WITH. Did it ever occur to you that NOBODY is FORCED to read what I say? However,You are “ATTRACTED” to look at what I have to say. NOW !! believe it or not I SEE that it’s not the right TIME for me to share with anyone on your blog that which I am aware of. I will not use the Nom de gure of, I’m smarter than all the rest of ya, because I SEE that ‘NAME’ has already been taken & is being USED by MOST of your other FOLLOWERS. They are not here to SHARE, they are here to advise us of how little we know, & display how intelligent & SMART they are. Yes, it DOES take all kinds to make a world. One thing I KNOW for sure & that IS I AM a MISFIT ! In this world, AND on YOUR , as Roger said, this awesome, unique, high quality blog. AND, I agree with Roger about that, but I do not agree with what he also said, about WHO & his description of WHO was participating on this awesome, unique, high quality Adask law Blog.

      P.S. You do not need to go to the trouble of banning me, I will do that myself. I do not know how “IP” addresses work, so, If you do ban me, maybe you also will be banning some future commentor who would be an asset to your awesome blog, like Jethro REALLY IS. But, I probably should not have said that knowing you WILL consider the source. YOU DO HAVE A HANGUP ON NAMES. BUT !! OF COURSE YOU DISAGREE, I know that. bye bye

       
      • Adask

        June 26, 2015 at 1:50 AM

        I haven’t threatened to ban you. With all the jokes you tell, you are singularly insensitive to the humor of others. In any case, how many times have you “banned yourself” from this blog in the past? And how long did any of those self-imposed bans last? A few days? As Tina Turner might say, “You might as well face it, you’re addicted to blog.”–this blog, that is.

         
      • Toland

        June 26, 2015 at 7:01 PM

        Al, when you stopped banning Les, the self-bans began, to maintain the drama. Playing it “cute”, winning approval as “clever”, posting superfluous nonsense, stirring the pot, causing a crisis – whatever it takes to keep oneself and one’s unresolved hang-ups at the center of attention. The official topic is only a starting point for changing the subject to what really matters: “me and my issues”.

         
      • Roger

        June 27, 2015 at 1:23 AM

        > The official topic is only a starting point for changing the subject to what really matters: “me and my issues”.

        Lol, yep. This was confirmed when the mental midget went on a multi-thread rampage in protest against Alfred’s announcement that his blog is about ideas, not people.

        That episode is what got Henry working on the browser add-on which now 10 people are using to blank out the body text of all posts by Les Fuchs (or whatever the nom du jour happens to be). Good move by Henry, because otherwise at least some of those people would avoid the comment threads of this blog altogether, as happens at many unmoderated sites.

        We’ll have to somehow get along without any more dull and predictable “zingers” from the failed class clown.

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 6, 2015 at 1:49 AM

        @ . bye bye
        My/our bye bye means, see ya later, like in, maybe 5 minutes. As Henry said, he picks the definition that fits his choosing & as one of US has said before, what is good for the Goose is also good for the Goose-E. :-) D

         
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 3:31 AM

      Adask,
      @ I’m taking lessons on how to simultaneously play the spoons and the kazoo. Should be ready for prime time sometime next Fall.
      The good news is you certainly won’t be called the spoons and the kazoo man of Alcatraz. Maybe the spoons and kazoo man of the Dallas Texas Zoo, that ain’t bad though. :-) D

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 1, 2015 at 2:53 PM

      Adask,
      @ With all the jokes you tell, you are singularly insensitive to the humor of others.

      I am probably missing your point BUT, I did say earlier that YOU & Jethro were killing me by making me laugh so hard by your responses to Judge Colin. Also, in the event you did not get a prior response from me or one of us, you asked, “when you write under the pseudonym Bertha Kitt, can we address our replies to Saint Nicholas?

      One of We responded as follows,
      OHhhhhh yes!! That does remind me. I have posted under the pseudonym of, Santa. HO HO HO. I forgot about that. Well at least I did not use Eartha Kitt, YET anyway. Alfred you’re gonna miss me when I’m gone. You might be interested in this scripture. Luke 9:20; also, Mark 8:29; Matthew 16:15. People still love to talk about someone else & give their own opinions don’t they.

       
      • Adask

        July 1, 2015 at 11:18 PM

        Given your “quick-name-change” repertoire, I’m not always sure if and when you’re here. If I don’t know your name, and can’t be sure if you are or aren’t here, if you’re ever gone, how will I know for sure? How will I be able “miss you” if I can’t know when you’re here and therefore won’t know for sure, when you’re gone?

        Besides, how many times have you already been “gone”? Three? Six? More? And how many times have you come back? Every time. If we ever missed you in the past, it wasn’t for long. Why would we seriously worry about “missing” you in the future?

        It seems to me that, if you’re ever actually “gone,” we will miss you “Les,” but you will miss us “Moore”.

         
    • Lance Pearce

      September 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM

      @ If I don’t know your name, and can’t be sure if you are or aren’t here, if you’re ever gone, how will I know for sure? How will I be able “miss you” if I can’t know when you’re here and therefore won’t know for sure, when you’re gone?
      You will feel an emptiness inside, of your spirit. :-) But!!! You will not know why!! :-D

       
    • Lance Pearce

      September 10, 2015 at 3:45 PM

      Adask,
      @ Stay away from snuff, Mr. Phelps, it’ll stunt your growth.
      If anyone ever uses YOUR computer & posts a comment, it will show up to whoever it is sent to as coming from, Alfred Adask, at least I believe so, I/We do stand to be corrected about that, or anything else for that matter, if it matters.

       
  20. Toland

    June 23, 2015 at 5:35 PM

    The Stranglers – Skin Deep (1984)

     
    • Happy Campbell

      June 26, 2015 at 11:13 PM

      tOlaNd,
      @ to what really matters: “me and my issues”.
      The issue is whether You, Henry, & Roger’s stand on ANY issue matters. Seems to me, this is the only thing that really matters to you 3 BIG BOYS. Too bad people are so dumbed-down, shallow, & superficial they cannot see this. BUT! you are right in saying people can only handle so much truth

       
  21. Les Moore

    June 24, 2015 at 1:24 AM

    Adask,
    We also don’t know if “Les” is “less” or if “Les” is “more”.
    I agree, more, or, less.

     
  22. Happy Campbell

    June 27, 2015 at 12:44 AM

    Roger,
    @ Right you are, Toland.
    WHY ABSOLUTELY !! But YA have to admit it, “boys” The ol TROLL can not only take it he knows how to DISH IT OUT TOO. You have noticed that haven’t YA? :-) :-) :-) D

     
  23. Adask

    June 30, 2015 at 12:28 AM

    Moon @ “Are you discriminating against those with multiple personalities?”

    No. Absolutely not. Multiple personalities might be an improvement. What we have here is the same personality with “multiple names”.

     
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 3:34 AM

      @ No. Absolutely not. Multiple personalities might be an improvement. What we have here is the same personality with “multiple names”.
      I wish you would make up your mind. You say we are Legion one day, &,one personality the next. Legion has many personalities.

       
    • Bertha Kitt

      July 1, 2015 at 2:46 AM

      Adask, Henry, Roger, Toland
      Are you & the “Big 3sum” aware of many court cases saying we can use as many names as we want too as long as any of those names are not used for fraudulent purposes? Where is any fraudulent statement or comment made by this Les Fuches? I would like to see what the newest example of fraud is. Why do you allow, apparently, fraudulent statements/comments to continue persistently on your blog? I would like to be brought up to snuff. Thanks.

       
      • Adask

        July 1, 2015 at 7:19 AM

        Stay away from snuff, Mr. Phelps, it’ll stunt your growth.

        If you can use any name you like so long as doing so is not intended to commit fraud, can we assign any name we like to you so long as we don’t intend to commit fraud. I.e., when you write under the pseudonym Bertha Kitt, can we address our replies to Saint Nicholas?

         
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 10:47 PM

      Adask,
      @ Given your “quick-name-change” repertoire, I’m not always sure if and when you’re here
      You can be sure of this Brother Alfred. I am here because I am not all there. Also it is becoming harder & harder for me to keep up with ALL ourselves. It’s like I have two right arms on two left hands. ANYWAY, I will try to get this posted again because I firmly believe we have ” this state” because of the following & much more information too tedious to post.

      Re: MARTIAL LAW. Under Martial Law, The States are divided into REGIONAL AREAS Just as U.S.S.R. is divided into regions. This IS now, “the state of, this state’.

      1. The term “martial law” carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various
      ways by different people and at different times. Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 66 S.Ct. 606,
      611,615; 327 U.S. 304; 90 L.Ed. 688.

      2. “When the citizen is governed by the military power, he is not governed by the soldier’s code of military law,but he is said to be to be governed by martial law; and this law is perfectly distinct and entirely different from military law, to which soldiers are subject.”
      Griffin v. Wilcox, (1863), 21 Indiana, 370, page 376 Supreme Court of Indiana

      3. President Andrew Johnson, said,”All this legislative machinery of martial law,
      military coercion,and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other”.

      4. The cry for “Public Safety” goes hand in hand with the types of necessities claimed to be authorized as martial rule under martial law. Remember, Russia has Courts & Prosecutors & JURIES too.

      5. Under Martial Law, The States are divided into REGIONAL AREAS Just as U.S.S.R. is divided into regions. This IS now, “the state of, this state’.

      Sincerely & with love from ALL OF US UNBELOVED TROLLS :-(

       
    • Jerry Byrd

      July 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM

      @ If you can use any name you like so long as doing so is not intended to commit fraud, can we assign any name we like to you so long as we don’t intend to commit fraud. I.e., when you write under the pseudonym Bertha Kitt, can we address our replies to Saint Nicholas?

      Of Course !! Absolutely !! We are not here trying to win a popularity contest regardless of what Henry & Roger say. In addition, we do not want credit for anything. What we are aware of was taught to us. We were not indoctrinated. It either has the “ring of truth” or it does not.

       
    • moon

      July 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM

      For the record, which some have questioned at times, moon is all mine and is about all my brain can handle.

       
      • moon

        July 4, 2015 at 5:31 PM

        For clarification, my previous comment is in reference to Al’s comment @ Moon @ “Are you discriminating against those with multiple personalities?”

        No. Absolutely not. Multiple personalities might be an improvement. What we have here is the same personality with “multiple names”.

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 6, 2015 at 1:22 AM

        moon,
        @ Just don’t start howlin at yourself.

        Howlin’ at the Moon – Hank Williams Sr. – YouTube
        Aug 3, 2008 … Hank Williams recorded Howlin’ at the moon in 1951, along with I Can’t Help It (If I
        ‘m Still in Love with You). Howlin’ at the Moon reached #3 in …
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvsqlTGgKeg – 276k – Cached – Similar Pages

         
      • Lance Pearce

        September 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM

        @ For the record, which some have questioned at times, moon is all mine and is about all my brain can handle.
        moon. Just don’t think about the dark side. You do have a lot to handle, but we think you handle it all quite well, if not even better than that. I do not pay much attention to “Names”. I/We try to capiche what is said, i.e. the comment.

         
  24. Henry

    June 30, 2015 at 11:48 AM

    “Are you discriminating against those with multiple personalities?”

    Probably not, moon. As Al suggests, the comment history of Les Fuchs is, if anything, a monotonous collection. That is, the sameness of these comments (over several years) is what’s notable about them, not their “multipleness”.

    The repetitive, high-volume/low-content, nature of posts by Les Fuchs does not suggest someone with “multiple personalities”. Rather, such a posting history is typical of a “forum bot”, which is trade jargon for a software program that automatically generates and posts content on public internet forums.

    The jabbering, oddly empty quality of comments by Les Fuchs is characteristic of a forum bot. These programs are advertised as using “natural language”, meaning they’re supposed to write and interact like normal living commenters, but the effect is never quite convincing. Software automation of this type is used for many purposes, the most common being commercial spam where posting forum comments is merely an excuse to link a website, astroturf a product, etc.

    However, Al has, on a few occasions, remarked that his blog may be the target of malicious disruption, possibly by government agents. Rather than paying a human employee to neutralize this unwelcome “marketplace of ideas” by clogging it up with pointless rubbish which also makes the field of “legal theory” etc. look like a pastime for imbeciles, an automated forum bot is SOP for the purpose.

     
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 1:08 PM

      hEnRy,
      @ However, Al has, on a few occasions, remarked that his blog may be the target of malicious disruption, possibly by government agents.
      I have noticed this also. I have also noticed this is when you 3 heavyweights back up & punt too D

       
    • Roger

      June 30, 2015 at 6:38 PM

      Sure enough, shortly after your comment was posted, a reply pops up by the Les Fuchs nom du jour, which admittedly is bot-like behavior. (No, the reply text itself doesn’t display, but the fact that this area is blanked-out reveals “who” it is; and the sheer quantity of recent posts by this username fits the profile.)

      While I suspect you think Les Fuchs is a bot only due to your long hours writing software, I agree there is a resemblance, and you could be right. So far though, I still think “neurological dysfunction” (which can cause the repetitive, stereotyped behaviors we observe) aggravated by “narcissistic personality disorder” is a more likely explanation.

      Either way, the many-times-banned Les Fuchs is no longer an issue for us thanks to your text-blanking browser add-on – but the quality of Alfred’s blog still suffers, regrettably.

       
      • Allen Curtis

        July 2, 2015 at 5:19 PM

        Roger,& Associates,
        @ Either way, the many-times-banned Les Fuchs is no longer an issue for us thanks to your text-blanking browser add-on – but the quality of Alfred’s blog still suffers, regrettably.

        Do you guys really think it is a good idea to keep bringing up this Les Fuchs Poster like you do about every 6 months? You DID the same thing WHEN little case henry Poster came on board, AND, you accused moon, another Poster of being Les Fuchs. NEXT, you said moon FINALLY got BANNED. I think what you are doing is a BAD IDEA but, who am I? :-) D

         
      • Mark Twang

        July 22, 2015 at 11:16 PM

        Roger,
        @That episode is what got Henry working on the browser add-on which now 10 people are using to blank out the body text of all posts by Les Fuchs (or whatever the nom du jour happens to be). Good move by Henry, because otherwise at least some of those people would avoid the comment threads of this blog altogether, as happens at many unmoderated sites.

        You REPROBATES enjoy what you are doing while you can. You have a SICK SENSE OF HUMOR and you KNOW EXACTLY What I am talking about, but REMEMBER THIS, Ecclesiastes 12:14
        For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

         
    • moon

      July 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM

      Henry, just noticed you received two thumbs down on your multiple personalities comment…wonder who did that? Hmmmmm…

      Still, it’s amazing to me that small details are remembered by the multiple poster, therefore my suspicion of multiple personalities.

      The one behind the postings is creative, in my opinion.

       
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM

        moon,
        @ The one behind the postings is creative, in my opinion.
        Thanks moon, but I am a long way from being creative as or like you are. :-) You see moon, sometimes I see a bait & switch operation going on. This is the reason for the thumbs down. D

         
      • Dea Lawman

        July 8, 2015 at 10:40 AM

        moon,
        OHhhhhhhhh by the light of that siv-ver-ree moon……………..” ok I fess up. The aim/goal was to get you to put me in the movies. With a little makeup I can play several different personalities/ roles/parts. I will work strictly for/on commission too. moon, I’m an Alabama Colonel, courtesy of, George Wallace. Will this help, or hinder me in your thoughts about putting me in the movies? We could call it, Several Stars are Born. Good idea, or, No?? :-)

         
      • Mark Twang

        July 22, 2015 at 9:41 PM

        moon, Howdy Pardner, Sup Bro.?
        @ Henry, just noticed you received two thumbs down on your multiple personalities comment…wonder who did that? Hmmmmm…
        moon, one of US did that, but truthfully,I do do not recall which one of me, excuse me, US, there we we go, I do not remember which one of us did. All of me, gives you thumbs up tho. OHhhhhhh all of me why not take all of me.Can’t you see I’m no good without you………………………….” :-) D

         
  25. Bertha Kitt

    July 1, 2015 at 2:30 AM

    @ Contradiction?
    [courtesy Google Images]
    Nope, it’s true.

     
    • Jerry Byrd

      July 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM

      Re: The Google image red & blue buttons.
      The red button is false. The blue button is true.

       
      • Adask

        July 6, 2015 at 11:34 AM

        I think you have that backwards, don’t you?

         
  26. Allen Curtis

    July 1, 2015 at 11:16 AM

    Adask,
    , when you write under the pseudonym Bertha Kitt, can we address our replies to Saint Nicholas?
    OHhhhhh yes!! That does remind me. I have posted under the pseudonym of, Santa. HO HO HO. I forgot about that. Well at least I did not use Eartha Kitt, YET anyway. Alfred you’re gonna miss me when I’m gone. You might be interested in this scripture. Luke 9:20; also, Mark 8:29; Matthew 16:15. People still love to talk about someone else & give their own opinions don’t they.

     
  27. Dea Lawman

    July 8, 2015 at 6:27 AM

    @ I think you have that backwards, don’t you?
    One or the other is true & one or the other is false. One of US said previously,@ Contradiction?
    [courtesy Google Images]
    Nope, it’s true.
    Actually we were trying to see if you are still here. :-) Yes, it’s true, we ARE addicted to this, your blog. We like YOU, Jethro, moon, Patriot One, Applesence & palani. TJ can take a walk.

     
  28. Dea Lawman

    July 8, 2015 at 6:35 AM

    Re:The red button is false.The blue button is true.
    @ I think you have that backwards, don’t you?
    ok,The red button is true. The blue button is false. Thanks for the notice.

     
  29. Adask

    July 8, 2015 at 7:00 AM

    Your welcome. I’m here to help you.

     
    • Dea Lawman

      July 8, 2015 at 9:43 AM

      Adask,
      @ Your welcome. I’m here to help you.
      We KNOW that/this. True Blue 2. We also believe that 2 heads are better than one even if one is a cabbage head. :-) D

       
    • Les Moore

      August 4, 2015 at 7:03 PM

      Alfred Adask,
      @ when you’re gone? Besides, how many times have you already been “gone”? It seems to me that, if you’re ever actually “gone,” we will miss you “Les,” but you will miss us “Moore”.
      Brother Alfred You REAL GONE MAN!! I mean U FAR OUT BRO! But, I agree with ya, to some degree, more or less. BUT!! I honestly don’t know IF I agree MORE, or, LESS

       
    • Allen Curtis

      August 15, 2015 at 5:26 AM

      Adask,
      @ Your welcome. I’m here to help you.
      Thanks dear Brother!! Have provisions in advance, cause it will be a hard way to go after September.

       
    • Lance Pearce

      September 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM

      @ Your welcome. I’m here to help you.
      Which One(s)? :-D

       

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