Troublemaker.




  1. Serious says:

    @29 Mr. Fusion

    A lawyer? Maybe. Really he is just another LIEBERTARIAN proclaiming his love of the Constitution so he doesn’t have to obey it or the laws.

    – It is spelt Libertarian and if your trying to be humorous by adding “lie” in the word, you come across as an uneducated zealot. What is wrong with the constitution of the United States? and what does that have to do with not obeying the constitution or the laws?

    Searches at courthouses are perfectly legal. First, there is no expectation of privacy in public and second Judges have the inherent authority to control their courts. The second point not only applies to behavior, but also dress.

    – Pardon, but did he say it was illegal? (honestly i didnt hear this part, my bad if it is there) There is an expectation of privacy in public by law.. multiple laws actually. You can’t use public settings for commercial benefit without approval, you can’t take pictures of certain locations etc.. so yes you can expect some privacy in public. If a child was to walk through that scanner they have produced child pornography and I can expect to keep my nudity and my child’s nudity private in public. That is just in the U.S, many European countries, people don’t even need a national ID and police does not have the lawful right to ask for you identification, unless they have proof that you have done something wrong.

    – The judge only controls his courtroom when in session, he/she does not write laws he/she exercises/executes them, and does not control the court building – that is government property in most cases and is enforced by either police or security that is dictated to follow protocol/law. Yes the judge may control the dress code of his/her courtroom when in session, to an acceptable level – if the judge goes too far he/she may lose his/her license.

    Although Malls may see more gun incidents, they also see tens of thousands times the number of people than does a court. A court has many very dangerous people passing through its doors.

    – Usually the dangerous people in a court are restrained, unless you assume the family of the dangerous individual are dangerous too? then that is guilty by association. Then again there are a lot of families of dangerous individuals in malls as well. Statistically I assume incidents in malls are much higher even before the introduction of body scanners in courthouse buildings.. so it doesn’t justify it. A ratio is a ratio.. if the incidents are higher in malls, perhaps we should introduce these body scanners there as well? Damage of a bomb could do a lot more in a mall, if, as you say there are more people passing through their doors (ratio).

    As a lawyer, this LIEBERTARIAN should know that as an officer of the court he is bound by all the rules of the court. If he does not represent his client because he refuses to follow the rules of the court, he risks losing his license.

    – Again, it is spelt Libertarian. Yes, he has to abide by the reasonable “rules” of the judge for the courtroom when in session, but he does have the permission to challenge that “law” as unconstitutional if it does not abide by state law or the constitution or cannot be seen as within reason. The lawyer disagreeing with the friskin’ is being unreasonable – in my opinion.

    Conclusion:

    1. Is the lawyer being silly regarding the pat down.. yes.
    2. Could he have just settled for a pat down, yes..

    3. Does Mr. Fusion always have to be so negative and bash every (exaggeration for effect) person that disagrees with him or who he think is a libertarian, conservative bigot? NO..

    Take a friggin’ chill pill. Have some common decency. I responded in your format above to annoy you, because you tend to do the exact same thing. I hardly doubt that you are this way in real life.. oh, it is the interwebz, I can act as I want. I guess, you can’t – it is the public and you can’t expect any privacy? right? If we continue on the slippery slope our full name and address will show with our postings..

  2. LibertyLover says:

    26,

    The attorney should be armed..and it should be legal for him to carry concealed. He is an officer of the court, and should be trusted.

    Bingo. A lawyer friend I know got his CCP based on that fact alone before the state enacted a CCP law.

  3. Winston says:

    Dear Lawyer,

    Welcome to Oceania, pal.

    Sincerely yours,
    Winston

  4. Mr. Fusion says:

    #30, Serious,

    There are so many errors in your post, let look at just a few.

    What is wrong with the constitution of the United States? and what does that have to do with not obeying the constitution or the laws?

    There is very little wring with the Constitution. (Please note that as it is a formal document, it is always capitalized by those who have some respect for it.)

    LIEBERTARIANS though love to quote portions of the Constitution they like, such as the second amendment, but ignore other portions, such as the “commerce claus”, “takings amendment” or “income tax” amendment.

    Pardon, but did he say it was illegal? (honestly i didnt hear this part, my bad if it is there)

    He inferred as much. He advertised that he was a “Constitutional Lawyer”. The end of the video encourages viewers to visit his web site and learn about your constitutional right to avoid being scanned. You might not have “heard it”, but then you would have to read it.

    Usually the dangerous people in a court are restrained,

    Not in the presence of a jury. Friends have tried to free dangerous prisoners in the past. My own uncle was wounded in such an attempt. He was a police Sargent in charge of transporting a prisoner from court when they were attacked in 1958 (I believe). While this is a close experience, there have been many others.

    The judge only controls his courtroom when in session, he/she does not write laws he/she exercises/executes them, and does not control the court building – that is government property in most cases and is enforced by either police or security that is dictated to follow protocol/law. Yes the judge may control the dress code of his/her courtroom when in session, to an acceptable level – if the judge goes too far he/she may lose his/her license.

    Wrong. A Judge controls his court room, chambers, and ancillary areas. The Chief Judge has jurisdiction over the entire building. In smaller single Judge buildings, that Judge has jurisdiction over the building. Guidelines are usually laid down by the Supreme Court of the State or Appellate Courts in the Federal system. Only if the guidelines are unreasonable will a superior court overrule a lower court’s rules.

    The one that really shows your ignorance is a Judge losing his “license”. Judges aren’t licensed. As far as I know, every Judge has immunity from any decision or ruling. Only criminal convictions or total disregard for the law will get a Judge removed. In most States, disbarment is the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court.

    Yes, he has to abide by the reasonable “rules” of the judge for the courtroom when in session, but he does have the permission to challenge that “law” as unconstitutional if it does not abide by state law or the constitution or cannot be seen as within reason. The lawyer disagreeing with the friskin’ is being unreasonable – in my opinion.

    Wrong. He may challenge any rule, law, regulation, order, etc. Until a court overturns the law etc. it is still in full force and he, as well as everyone, must follow the law. Only a Judge decides if a law is wrong.

    Finally, maybe you should put your brain in gear before sitting down at your computer. I gave reasoned, knowledgeable arguments for each post. Your responses are mostly wrong and illogical.

    I spell it as LIEBERTARIAN because of their lying. And yes they do, much like you’ve done.

  5. Fusion Lover says:

    #30. Fusion is our in-house Angry Liberal. He hates the Constitution except for the skewed version that exists in his mind. Also he likes to pick on others spelling and/or grammar, and then as in his post above……well just look at the first few remarks for errors.

    But thanks…you pwned his dumb ass.

  6. techie says:

    Ok Fusion, Libertarians LIE. But your precious Lieberal party doesn’t. And what that shows me is what a partisan piece of shit you are.

    We are all doomed until we destroy the bullshit two-party system.

    a new meme…LIEBERALS!

  7. Uncle Patso says:

    # 2 Benjamin:
    “The Court upheld the First Amendment. What makes you think they would not uphold the Forth Amendment?”

    And what about the Pascal & Fortran amendments? The Java Amendment?

  8. Mr. Fusion says:

    #34, your worship shows.

    #35, your ad hominem shows.

  9. Mr. Fusion says:

    #38, Not Very Serious

    What the hell are you babbling about? It is impossible to tell what you are complaining about. If you are quoting my posts please try using quote of some kind.

  10. Rick Cain says:

    There’s been more than a few courthouse shootings. Restricted areas are just that, restricted. Tensions are always high in court, and people still try to sneak in guns and knives.

  11. Serious says:

    #40 – Mr. Fizzle-Out

    Anything indented with “-” is my comment.. anything not is yours or from some source. If i knew how or bothered to highlight your post I would. I guess the level of intelligence required to identify your own postings is non existent.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5615 access attempts in the last 7 days.