Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Lol, good idea.
Who Will Run for President in 2020?
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And I do kind of want to appeal. With all my Evidence and Case Law, and International Treaties, and Religious Documents, and Texas Laws and US Laws that I can prove they violated, and the Narcotics Conspiracy Sargent I can subpoena (he was actually very helpful, and agreed that my Religion should be respected, which is something that should already be widespread, as this is America), I will most likely win.
But I kind of want them to win the first one, so that I can get to the Supreme Court with this.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And I am going to print this out and make it an Affidavit, then go to a bank and get it notarized and sign it. So that they can't pretend the Cop's words have more weight than mine, they will both be signed affidavits.
And I can bring up Judicial Estoppel to keep the court from treating me different than any other Religious person.
And I can bring up Judicial Estoppel to keep the court from treating me different than any other Religious person.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
The way Trump talks about stamina you would think that him and Hillary were going to cage fight for office at some point or something.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
If Trump had chosen Kim Kardashian for his VP he would have easily won, but he wanted to try to prove that he can make good decisions. Which didn't really pay off.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
If anyone thinks you can just trust Police because they are Police, look up Edward Hanrahan and Fred Hampton. The FBI, who everyone automatically thinks is out to do good, teamed up with the Chicago District Attorney and assassinated Fred Hampton. The FBI planted body guards, and then when they raided Fred Hampton's house for being a Black Panther, they killed him in his bed and said that there was a gun fight. It took 20 years, but finally all of this was revealed in court.
So when the Police say "There was a gun" don't just automatically believe them. Even the FBI is willing to lie about things like that.
And look at the Oakland Police Department right now, or LAPD when Rodney King exposed them, or the Knapp Commission from the 70s. You can't just assume Police are good guys. Sure, some of them are, but you can't just assume they all are until they prove that. They have to earn the respect of the community, they can't just go around shooting people in the chest and head saying "That's the best way to stop someone" and "Legs and arm shots don't work to neutralize", then expect everyone to respect them.
The reason we are in the situation we are now with the courts can be found in the Supreme Court case Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977), which is part of the reason Public Defenders exist:
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
I have won a Religious Marijuana case, a Religious Nootropics case, a case about Driving on the wrong side of the road, and I am currently in the middle of an Expired Buyers plate case that I plan on winning as well. I have also helped with Credit Card Fraud Cases, an Involuntary Manslaughter Case and an Organized Retail theft case. And what I have seen, while going through the court and watching other people's cases while I wait for the judge to call me up, and while talking to people about their own cases, is that about 99% of cases have the Trial Waived meaning people give up their rights. Then within the remaining 1%, about 75%+ of those cases are determined based on the history of your Lawyer or how good they are at saying things like "I have to pick my wife up at the Hospital, can we please get this done quickly" and the final remaining 25% may present case law, but are usually determined by technicalities, for example, if any witnesses show up.
So maybe .5% of cases in America even have a single piece of Case Law presented. And as stated in Bounds V Smith, again:
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
So when the Police say "There was a gun" don't just automatically believe them. Even the FBI is willing to lie about things like that.
And look at the Oakland Police Department right now, or LAPD when Rodney King exposed them, or the Knapp Commission from the 70s. You can't just assume Police are good guys. Sure, some of them are, but you can't just assume they all are until they prove that. They have to earn the respect of the community, they can't just go around shooting people in the chest and head saying "That's the best way to stop someone" and "Legs and arm shots don't work to neutralize", then expect everyone to respect them.
The reason we are in the situation we are now with the courts can be found in the Supreme Court case Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977), which is part of the reason Public Defenders exist:
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
I have won a Religious Marijuana case, a Religious Nootropics case, a case about Driving on the wrong side of the road, and I am currently in the middle of an Expired Buyers plate case that I plan on winning as well. I have also helped with Credit Card Fraud Cases, an Involuntary Manslaughter Case and an Organized Retail theft case. And what I have seen, while going through the court and watching other people's cases while I wait for the judge to call me up, and while talking to people about their own cases, is that about 99% of cases have the Trial Waived meaning people give up their rights. Then within the remaining 1%, about 75%+ of those cases are determined based on the history of your Lawyer or how good they are at saying things like "I have to pick my wife up at the Hospital, can we please get this done quickly" and the final remaining 25% may present case law, but are usually determined by technicalities, for example, if any witnesses show up.
So maybe .5% of cases in America even have a single piece of Case Law presented. And as stated in Bounds V Smith, again:
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Ed Hanrahan was my uncle. By marriage though.If anyone thinks you can just trust Police because they are Police, look up Edward Hanrahan and Fred Hampton. The FBI, who everyone automatically thinks is out to do good, teamed up with the Chicago District Attorney and assassinated Fred Hampton. The FBI planted body guards, and then when they raided Fred Hampton's house for being a Black Panther, they killed him in his bed and said that there was a gun fight. It took 20 years, but finally all of this was revealed in court.
So when the Police say "There was a gun" don't just automatically believe them. Even the FBI is willing to lie about things like that.
And look at the Oakland Police Department right now, or LAPD when Rodney King exposed them, or the Knapp Commission from the 70s. You can't just assume Police are good guys. Sure, some of them are, but you can't just assume they all are until they prove that. They have to earn the respect of the community, they can't just go around shooting people in the chest and head saying "That's the best way to stop someone" and "Legs and arm shots don't work to neutralize", then expect everyone to respect them.
The reason we are in the situation we are now with the courts can be found in the Supreme Court case Bounds v. Smith 430 U.S. 817 (1977), which is part of the reason Public Defenders exist:
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
I have won a Religious Marijuana case, a Religious Nootropics case, a case about Driving on the wrong side of the road, and I am currently in the middle of an Expired Buyers plate case that I plan on winning as well. I have also helped with Credit Card Fraud Cases, an Involuntary Manslaughter Case and an Organized Retail theft case. And what I have seen, while going through the court and watching other people's cases while I wait for the judge to call me up, and while talking to people about their own cases, is that about 99% of cases have the Trial Waived meaning people give up their rights. Then within the remaining 1%, about 75%+ of those cases are determined based on the history of your Lawyer or how good they are at saying things like "I have to pick my wife up at the Hospital, can we please get this done quickly" and the final remaining 25% may present case law, but are usually determined by technicalities, for example, if any witnesses show up.
So maybe .5% of cases in America even have a single piece of Case Law presented. And as stated in Bounds V Smith, again:
"Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969)."
.Pinworm.
Well-Known Member
@Finshaggy - Can you help me with something? I want to sue my district for being too white. Do you think we have a case?
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
.Pinworm.
Well-Known Member
At least racerboy gets it. Even though he never likes any of my posts anymore, I am still a fan.
I think we have a solid case. What do you think @Unclebaldrick?
I think we have a solid case. What do you think @Unclebaldrick?
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Racerboy is so fab.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Wrong. "Order for Proposed Scheduling Order. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court within sixty (60) days after the appearance of any defendant. Proposed Scheduling Order due by 9/5/2016." You're the Plaintiff. You were ordered to submit the scheduling order, not the Defendant.
Fin, why do you think they didn't consent to using ADR? Is it possible they feel they have a good case at trial?
Don't worry about it. Tell Meghan and Shelly I said wussup.
You posted ad nauseam about it.
RickyBobby26
Well-Known Member
IDK who I'd like to see run, but I think the ticket will be Cruz vs. Warren.
I have been talking about the current election since October 22, 2013 (facebook, I even guessed Ted Cruz would run) and March 21, 2014 (forums) and I even made a Facebook group called "Open Carry Day at the RNC" in July 2014 with Nazi images (long before Trump was running and being compared to Hitler. I just saw that neo-Nazi attitude coming from the Tea Party, and wanted to see if they would all take guns to their convention if I invited a bunch of people to do so. I was raised in Texas and I have met the friendly neo-Nazis that just seem like not horrible, freedom loving people until you get deep into their Facebook profile.). I knew that a Woman would be running for president and was really ready for that, I just hoped that it would be someone more charismatic than Hillary Clinton (I even called it back then that they would say she looked sick, or say she was too old, which is not true, but it is an obvious attack) and someone that is not in the same Bloodline as all of our past presidents. Trump and Clinton are actually related, they are like 8th cousins or something (I suggested Kirsten Powers, because she can really debate). But last night Hillary did show that she can definitely beat Trump in debate, which was not a surprise. I have been saying that she would beat Trump in debate since June or July of this year (twitter).
But I figured now is a good time to start talking about who is going to run in 2020, just to see what people think. I personally think that Tulsi Gabbard should run #Tulsi2020 #Tulsi2024 . I wouldn't mind if Bernie ran again, but I never supported him this time because he was very fake about his Revolution. He literally knew Abbie Hoffman personally, but he pretends that a Revolution can be achieved by voting. That is not a Revolution, there is no Revolution without bloodshed. And why is Bernie not talking about ending Corporate Property Rights, etc? That's the Revolution, what Bernie talks about isn't a real Revolution, but I would like to see it turn into a real Revolution. And of course Elizabeth Warren should run, she kind of just bowed her head to Hillary this time. I think Bernie actually ran because Elizabeth Warren didn't run. But if Tulsi Gabbard ran I think she could definitely win and she should definitely run. That's for the Democratic Party.
And as for the Republican Party, that is really up in the air. If Trump ends up winning, the Republican Party is going to be a whole different thing and it will be at least 8 years until any Republicans run again if Trump wins (even if he doesn't win a second term), and if Hillary wins it will be at least 8 years before another Democrat can run (even if she doesn't get a second term). I kind of hope Trump wins, just because it would gin up the left (The Protests and Riots would be fun too) so that they aren't so middle of the road, and then in 4 years a Democrat could run. But Hillary can definitely beat Trump, so it could go either way. But if Trump loses this election, and even if he wins (but if he wins they might become a whole new party, having attempted to build a wall, etc), I am pretty sure we will see Marco Rubio running again, and Ted Cruz. I really don't want to see Ted Cruz run again though. Of course Huckabee is going to run, and we might start seeing people like Megyn Kelly running, which wouldn't be horrible. I think Stephen Colbert started this whole thing where people come out of Television and run for President, and Trump is proving that it can possibly even work pretty well. Stephen Colbert never actually ran though, if he were going to run it would be in this current election. Paul Ryan might also run for President, and that wouldn't be extremely horrible.
But if Trump wins I think we will start seeing a new Republican Party. His kids, at least a few, will probably start running for different offices (probably not president right away), and we will see some really anti-Mexican, anti-Immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-, anti-, anti-, Republicans, just really existing in opposition to the rights of other groups. A lot of racists will feel empowered to start running for office and David Duke won't be such a lonely KKK guy in office anymore.
And the next 4 to 8 years, if Trump wins, are going to be ripe for 3rd parties. So we could see the Libertarians take the GOP or the Tea Party or both (not a great chance, but maybe). Or a whole new party could come out of nowhere. And supposedly Kanye West is going to run, but if he wants to win he really needs to start getting Political, he doesn't have to run for an office yet, but even just being as Political as P. Diddy with the "Vote or Die" campaign, or getting really in to Flint, or the current protests in Charlotte North Carolina, or Black Lives Matter in General, would be a good start if he actually plans on running in 4 years. I'm not sure if I would vote for him, but he needs to start getting Political if he does want anyone to vote for him.
So the person I would want to see run for President the most next time would be Tulsi Gabbard. Then Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie if he actually starts teaching people about the real Revolution that almost happened in the 60s, because there was a real Revolution brewing, that is why the Democrats (the Southern Racist Party at the time) passed the Civil Rights Bills. And I wouldn't mind seeing Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan or Megyn Kelly run for President (I don't think Kirsten Powers is ever going to, she even stopped debating). We really need more people that are outside of the current Presidential Bloodline. We do get to "vote", but we are basically just voting for our favorite Royal Family member. Even Bush and Obama are related, via Cheney (this has been addressed by Obama publicly, and is in Cheney's wife's book), and Trump and Hillary are related (This has been addressed by respected media outlets, I believe the Washington post did an article), and they are all descendants of the evil tax collecting King (King Richard) from the Robin Hood story. We need to end this, and the best way is to pick people to support many years ahead of time.
Who would you want to see run in 2020?
Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016. And she will eventually fuck up bad. And she'll serve a bad term. And Elizabeth Warren will challenge her for the democratic nomination in 2020, and Warren will win.
But by then the GOP will have rebuilt itself with more mainstream views on climate change, race relations, and LGBT issues, and Ted Cruz will win the presidency.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I never said they were ordered, I said I told them to do it. And I did, my exact wording was:Wrong. "Order for Proposed Scheduling Order. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court within sixty (60) days after the appearance of any defendant. Proposed Scheduling Order due by 9/5/2016." You're the Plaintiff. You were ordered to submit the scheduling order, not the Defendant.
Fin, why do you think they didn't consent to using ADR? Is it possible they feel they have a good case at trial?
Don't worry about it. Tell Meghan and Shelly I said wussup.
"The Federal Judge rejected your removal, submit a proposed scheduling order by September 5th. If you don't then I will make the Schedule"
So they filed it. Me being the one ordered to do it does not change the facts. And I did submit mine, so your whole point is moot.
And they didn't say they wouldn't Resolve out of court. The Judge said "I hope you can resolve this without having to go to trial" but that was the only discussion we had about anything like that, and we haven't had a second discussion yet (they have a year to settle out of court). That was the only discussion we've had, and it was a call to discuss the schedule with the judge.
I don't care how good they think their case is. All they have in their defense is laws, ordinances, regulations and customs. And they will have to prove that each of those is not violating a Religion (the Constitution) when they use it (as per Rule 5.1). And they can't prove it. Their "case" they feel good about is them walking into a court room and saying "He was intoxicated, but we don't know what by" and "The officer did everything by the book", and they think that that shifts the burden to me to prove anything was done that merits a suit. But they have this completely misunderstood. First I just prove that I was intoxicated in private and as part of a Religious Ceremony, and that Religious exercise can not be deemed bizarre or abhorrent. Then prove what my Religion is. That then shifts the burden to them to prove that they didn't violate my Religion. And they can't, because they did violate my Religion.
They can't win this, unless they can somehow say "Once we realized none of it was illegal, we let him go and gave him all his stuff back" and that is not what happened, so they can't say that.