Lucky...

Members
  • Content

    10,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Lucky...

  1. Yes, it's an ad hominem. Also a demonstration of not being able to follow the issue and focus on a typo.
  2. You know when people are out of things to say when they defer to typos. Thx for the confirmation, go buy a case of flags while your nation proves itself to be closer and closer to China everyday.....other than fiscally, we're more and more distant. As for hire a lawyer, the Rules of Civil Procedure for Civil Violation Cases are still that, even for F Lee Bailey. The judge wasn't violating the rules, he was following the laws as established by the same kind of garbage that gave us SB 1070. Now discretion could allow him to be reasonable and have all evidence examined/crossed, but hey, he's just being an AZ judge. With that said, Jugde Donahoe and a few others are great judges, but so many, esp lower court judges aren't even lawyers, most are not.
  3. In Nazizona, the Rules of Civil Procedure for Civil Traffic Violation Cases (exact title) has no parameters for the judges procedure; they let him do what he wants. If he differed from rule it would be appealable. In my case: - Cop was sitting under an overpass, down a hill and around a fairly ight bend - Testified he visually measured my speed via his mirror, as he was pointed the same direction I was - Claimed he measured speed and then triggered radar to verify (the typical schpeel-lie BS they are trained to say) - I submitted a 20-something manual from the radar manufacturer for a different gun from that manufacturer - pig models are not published and since the RCP for civil traffic allows for no discovery I couldn't subpoena it. That manual talks of cosine error when the holder of teh radar gun isn't in a straight line with vehicle being measured. - Cop testified that he had 700 yards with which to visually estimate my speed, when the video I submitted shows only about 100 yards would be maximum that he could see me with bridge pillars in the way. Robe-wearing pig-lover reluctantly allowed me to show video, but after piggy testified and then he wouldn't let me cross sir piglet on this. - When I read people saying how Illinois is the dirtiest state in the nation, I just understand that they can't fathom how redneck filthy Nazizona is. This law in 2-party states is dangerous, it follows suppression of the media and real Nazi-like tatics. The government and its representatives must be an open book in regard to public goings on and this is strict suppression. Not an expert, but I think 2-party laws: - Apply to audio recordings - Don't always require consent, just notification. I think only a couple require actual consent, most of the 12 2-partiers just require notification of recording. When we get to the pointwhere we suppress memorialized events / actions of our gov, we are in deep shit, nevermind 2nd issues, this is far more huge and will pass with typical American apathy. This is where the Euro's have a sack and we do not.
  4. Of course it may not be a crime, but admission is something else. I've audio recorded piggies at teh traffic stop, yet to have one admitted or even heard. I video recorded the scene weeks later, took it to court, the pig-lover wearing the robe allowed me to show it but not cross-examine the piglet. As I've said many times, this country is a dictatorial, oppressive turd, why is it that people agree in part, yet become offended by my remarks? The answer is to get the fuck out, wish I could go somewhere descent.
  5. If I were a racial minority I would be in law school and out, practicing making big $$$, prolly a free ride thur law school too. Well I'm white so I don't get the AA bump so I never went to law school, I would have had to actually score on the LSAT to get it. So here we are, a world full of BS AA shit; who's to blame? The moron blames racial minorities, informed people blame the crusty ole white folks who make decisions that create the current AA we have today. At least in the horrible liberal times the more liberal justices decided the Bakke case and decided quotas to be unconst, the crusty ole conservatives decided to fully implement AA as a part of Americana. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/index.html In fact it was Reagan-appointed O'Connor who was the swing for pro-AA as well as the author of the decision. Hmmm, it was Reagan who signed the 1986 Amnesty Bill into law. 3 of the 5 justices who were the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger were appointed by Republican presidents. So look at this shit a little more globally and you might actually understand it. Or, hate the black guy down the street, cause he prolly just stole your TV, right?
  6. isn't it the whites crying racism here? Would that make it more acceptable or less acceptable to you? Neither, his point was that skyrider was inferring that the people "crying racism" were the affected and that unless you are affected you have no buiness worrying about it.
  7. isn't it the whites crying racism here? Yes, in the black/white world of conservative thinking, you can only protest and issue if it affects youy personally, not even removed a bit, but ti must 100% directly affect you or it's none of your business. Good thing Lincoln and all the many others didn't think that way; Lincoln was a progressive, thankfully.
  8. Hmm...never figured you to be from AZ. And that matters how?????? Oh, only redneck garbage comes from here, I got ya.
  9. That'll be right after American white slavery. BTW, pls keep being you; it brings the youth and minority votes out - don't change a thing, you're perfect.
  10. We were teh last state in the nation to adopt MLK day and even then it was at the gunpioint of the NFL, so this is all really expected.
  11. History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster. history hasn't changed much. The bad things he did are still the same, and the debate over the good that occurred under his tenure continue. And later administrations have blown away his level of red ink. Not really, GWB and Reagan were teh same presidents policy wise. They were as funny to watch; a senile boob and a semi-retarded buffoon. They both cut taxes for the rich, they both killed unions, they both engaged in needless military ops and they both spanked the debt as bad and left the same mess. What's that you say? GWB almost doubled the debt increase of FR. Really? 1980's dollars are worth far less than 2000's dollars, so it was about the same and done pretty much the same way; lower taxes for the rich and let the government take the hit, blame it on entitlements. Top marginal brkt: - Reagan: inherited 70% - left 28% - GWB: inherited 40% - left 35% They were really identical presidents. So when you say later administrations, which are you talking? GHWB, Clinton, GWB and/or Obama?
  12. so complain to a mod. It doesn't do any good, it's more fun exemplifying the lock-stepped nature of conservatives.
  13. History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster. Yea, he fell to 10-12ish, then came to 10ish. Historians aren't sure what to do with him as he is so popluar. I think the debt mess will have to max out and investgation done to see when it turned ugly and taht will reveal fascist ronnie took a stable and manageable debt and tripled it, then it took GHWB/Clinton 12 years to stabilize it. Then GWB doubled that and left a turd that will take who knows how long to get under control again. The thing is, it's easy to think GWB fucked it all up as the belief is, even amongst conservatives, that GWB was incapable, but FR has all this pseudo cred amongst so many people that a denial exists to blame FR for anything. The Cold War was such a joke, esp 20 years after Guantanamo Bay, that only a true senile would pursue a war or a contest against them. They couldn't even do anything in Afghanistan and they're supposed to be able to kill us . Hell, even in WWII they had the help of most of the rest of the world and they lost 3-4 times the number of military troops than did Germany. So they were never a conventional threat, yet senile FR thought we needed to mortgage our future on that. Yea, it might be 10-20 more years, but FR should fall to at least 20, preferably 30's.
  14. How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested? I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system. What the morons fail to realize is that we don't need protection from good cops, we need protection from cops like these. This SC decision plays into the hands of bad cops. The exclusionary rule is supposed to deter police misconduct, admitting they act with misconduct. The exclusionary rule has been under attack by the right wingers since the days of Ed Meese. Alito and Roberts learned their trade under Meese. I didn't know that, but I believe it. I did know the RW was pro-cop to the point of, "let the cops kill em all and have God sort em out. For a small chunk of my life before college I registered Republican and in 94 voted the R's into congress and even voted for Dole . It was a collection of historical / legislative events that I read about that made me switch to the Dems shortly after entering college; this was one of them. When I learned the purpose of ER rule was to dissuade police misconduct I shit my pants. That's like saying to deter murder you counsel the murderers not to do it anymore and to levy a big fine. I have an idea, let's find dirty cops and hang their fucking pig asses out, rather than to slap their wrists and say, "bad cop, no dounut." Same with dirty prosecutors. Esp from the school of fools (conservatives) who believe deterrence has any significant effect, it doesn't work (in it's hypothetical form) unless the punishment is severe enough to dissuade that conduct. Slapping a wrist and dissallowing evidence merely makes the misconducting cop learn how to be dirty, better. But yea, I see conservatives as people who feel more pain when a cop gets caught being dirty over a defendant who is wrongly convicted by dirty cops. An example is a dirty Phoenix cop who was skimming Toys-for-tots toys from a drop-off point to teh tune of $5k. He was caught and: - Not fired - Not prosecuted But he lost his state certification so he just couldn't work as a cop. All the cops and cop-wanna be's / conservatives at ASU in my class stood up to say the toys were abandoned. Deterrence, the way R's claim it s/b would hang his ass so he feels it and all can see too (general deterrenfce theory). Yet they, as well as the courts give the dirty cop a free ride and merely exclude teh evidence and we should all fall in behind the cop and say how fucked the system is, per conservative logic.
  15. Hi LC, Yer right!!! The Guvmint does NOT have the "Right" to take guns away from reaponsible citizens, or anybody for that matter!! They do have a lot of "Power" to do that though!! This "California long gun "registration" is just typical latte' lippin' liberal politics as usual. Meanwhile back at the ranch: As things spin out of control, remember this:"All Politics in this country now is just dress rehersal for Civil War!" -Billy Beck- AUG2009 Oh is it liberal? Hmmm, why did the NRA revoke GHWB's card? GWb said he would have signed the fortunately sunsetted AWB if it came to him. It sounds good, but the Dems are only slightly more aggressive than the R's at trying to regulate guns.
  16. How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested? I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system. What the morons fail to realize is that we don't need protection from good cops, we need protection from cops like these. This SC decision plays into the hands of bad cops. The exclusionary rule is supposed to deter police misconduct, admitting they act with misconduct.
  17. It's his MO. He skirts the PA rules and he knows it. Just ignore him. He rarely makes a salient point (yes I said rarely implying it does happen) and he doesn't really post that much interesting content. if we had a killfile, he'd be in many of them I bet. And yet you ignore this, the worst thing said in this thread so far: I couldn't care less. Call it something other than marriage with the same rights, and go bugger yourself and your boyfriend silly. Now I'm supposedly skiting forum rules? That blatantly kicks themn in the junk.
  18. Absolutely. Now if a person signs an assumption of risk, a damage occurrs, injured person files and it is discovered the DZ did nothing wrong/negligent then the plaintiff should pay D's costs. But to ignore hearing it just really sets us up for bad things. Can teh DZ then have a non-rated TI take up that student? Hey, she signed the waiver / assumption of risk.
  19. Why not-she signed it? Is it ever OK for someone to take responsibility or do you think that running to mommy is always the answer? If we were side by side I doubt I would be the one running for mommy. Better get you mani updated. You know zip about contract law, in fact, you don't know the diff between contract law and tort law or that there is a diff and what it is. If she signed it and it was later discovered the DZO and TM's were smnoking dope between jumps, what of it? It should still stand? It takes a court action to compell people to disclose and to perform discovery.
  20. Waivers = assumption of risk. A student is assuming risk with the perception that the DZ: - Maintains the gear - Ensures instructors are certified and sober - Ensures the pilots are legal and trained - sober too - Has a general attitude of responsibility If those are met, the assumption of risk should stand, if any are breached, the assumption dies. You need to be able to bring the action before a court to discover evidence. You should always have the right to sue.
  21. And those are the words of a True Man. Damn I wish we had more like em. Give me a HOSE, I'll make dem terrist bastards talk. "OB, get the hell out of the way, your doing it all wrong. Get, now...and take that damn teleprompter with ya. Hey don't walk off with the hose...WHAT? your going home and taking the beer with ya." "Well then go on home, no body likes playing with ya any way." Oh, so you like war crimes? Hey, it was pretty cool when, after Hiro Hito surrendered that many US servicemen in Japanese prisons were murdered, huh? Damn right, wish they had more Japanese solders doing it, right? See, when one side acts like assholes, the other side(s) do too. Rules are rules, if you have to ask if it's torture, it obviously is.
  22. 1) Show me where that is specifically in the Bill Of Rights 2) You believe it is a right to murder an innocent while saying it's not OK to murder someone that has killed others and made concious decisions to do thgose murders? 3) Miranda is a WARNING, and something to be understood - think you missed the mark here 4) You are saying he against immigration and naturalization? 5) Where do you get the idea that he is against the 8th amendment. Have you even read it? A) I think he can speak for himself B) He wrote: It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. An individual right is a very lose term, he didn't say Constitutional or otherwise. Civil rights, human rts, rts based upon the state Const or US Const, the Geneva Convention, etc. He was global with his assertion, so was I. --> Show me where slavery abolition is in the BOR's. --> Also, see B) above. --> It isn't about me, he made the assertion about rights, Im calling him on it. --> SCOTUS said abortion, 1st term and some other exceptions, isn't murder and is legal. --> CP sucks as it catches the occassional innocent, most DRers deserve to die, I'm for the rts of the few inncoent people, you know, just like Kennedy claims to be. --> It's a right/protection under the 4th, 5th and 6th in various elements, YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE MARK. Miranda can apply to at least: searches, seizures, self-incrimination and right to counsel, so as much as Miranda is a warning, it goes FAR DEEPER than just a warning as if to mitigate it to a warning on a cup of coffee telling you that contents are hot. --> Again, your lack of understanding of the US Const is clear. The 14th is the equal protection Amendment; carding all brown people, as I'm sure Kennedy is pro, is a violation of the 14th. I have a BS in Justice, you figure it out. I don't think Kennedy defines cruel and unusual punnishment the same as most people. AKA: he couldn't care less about prison abuses from, as he calls them, DIRTBAGS. Hell, that's for pre-convict arrestees, just think how he feels about convicts. What, no address of: Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture. I'll take that acquiescence as thumbs up for torture. Or are we going to redefine torture not to include waterboarding?
  23. I can't believe that would be binding. If it is, it beautifully exemplay of the kind of toilet our labor laws are. Contracts mean little, a DZ assumption of liability means little. It's a nice thing for a lawyer to go to court with, it shows the plaintiff (estate or otherwise) was aware of dangers and decided to go anyway, but the fact is that YOU CANNOT SIGN AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO SUE. Of course per the article she didn't sign away, but she did limit her avenues. I just cannot believe that would be a sustainable contract, esp considering it was a 1-sided deal and that employees usually would not want to enter into that kind of agreeement. It's kinda like promising your first born for whatever furure consideration that you desperately need; it's a unilatteral contract, essentially a coerced agreement. Look at all the prenupts that are overthrown, a contract really means little, other than a specific performance type of contract like a purchase for something. Who knows, maybe NY is that fucked up. As for the issues, it's buffoonery to guess who's right, THAT'S WHAT A TRIAL IS FOR. Furthermore, is it binding arbitration or not? In Nazizona, civil suits up to 50K are deemed compulsory arb cases anyway, but either party can appeal from the arbiter's decision w/o cause and it's automatic. So it may be one of those and it may goto court upon appeal. Finally, if it is binding arb, somethimes these kinds of cases can fuck a defendant, altho they are seemingly more advantageous for them. Generally discovey is prohibited or limited in arb, that's what arb is for, to see what would likely happen if the case went to court. Admissions are usually wide open, so surprise witnesses can appear, depending upon NY rules of procedure.
  24. I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights. You know, I just figured out why you two are having such a hard time with this. You expect someone else to do everything for you and provide the world on a silky pillow witha satin bow (the essence of being Far Left). So you actually expect someone else to exercise your rights for you, as well. Just so there is no misunderstanding (except by you two, because that's what you do), I believe in individual rights, including being allowed to make a mistake. It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. I can't say the same for you two. So which of us has problems with people having rights? Hint: it's not me. 1) Whoosh; you didn't get it. 2) Kid with manicured nails, if you saw my job and how greasy I get before your bagel luncheon, you'd abruptly retract that. You have all the niceties and HC, I do not. It's laughingly pathetic to read you act as tho I am pampered and you the real tough guy. >>>>>>> It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. 1) Gay marriage 2) Abortion 3) Miranda 4) 14th Amendment 5) 8th Amendment Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture. Have a nice day, kid.
  25. Kallend's or anyone's citizenship hs zero purpose other than to say something like: WHT do you know, you're not even an American, or something as brilliant. He hasn't stepped in to clarify, so maybe now he can pipe in to dream up something innocuous.