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.

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.

#35, your ad hominem shows.

- Yay! I got to you! wohoo..
- Let us take the two final paragraphs first yeah?

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.

- You skipped half of my posts, took some out of context, disagreed to agree, and selectively chose parts that you wanted to nit-pick on. Let me do some of that to you! Since you delve into the childlike state.. I do not see any reason or knowledgeable arguments from your side – a lot of subjective opinions and memories from personal experiences.

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

- certainly not an argument or statement based on reason is it? a bit of a generalization. I have not lied. Let me prove it to you with facts.

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

- there were more errors in your post, as shown easily in the posts above.. and even more below. Nonetheless let us go through your nit-picks.

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.)

- Wrong is spelt “wrong” not “wring”, but O.K. Please note that I am not American, therefore it is not my constitution and is merely a constitution (noun) of the United States of America; I don’t know whether I have to show it the same respect as you do by capitalizing it. Frankly I am indifferent and only a person like you would focus on the capitalization rather than the question.

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.

- a bit of a generalization perhaps based upon selective memory? And i would assume that an individual that have to quote the constitution due to a certain event would quote the part that is relevant to their situation. “My gun is being seized without permission to do so, oh let me quote him the income tax amendment”..

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.

- He inferred or you assumed? A bit subjective here as well.. nothing wrong with saying he is a constitutional lawyer – as I assume all lawyers have to commit to the lawyers oath. http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/lawyersoath.cfm

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm):

I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan…;”

- Therefore he is indeed a constitutional lawyer and he may even be a specialist in the constitution. I don’t know and don’t care. So he never said it was illegal.. he is only promoting knowledge of the constitution that is meant to protect the people. I don’t see how that is wrong.

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.

- Are you sure about that… because it is wrong. Shackles or restraints are permitted both in the presence of a jury and during trials:

The right to appear before a jury free of shackles, however, is not absolute. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1985). Shackling is inherently prejudicial, but it is not per se unconstitutional. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 716. Under certain circumstances, “shackling . . . may be appropriate because of the public’s competing interest in courtroom security and the just administration of law.” Id. at 722 (citing Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. at 344). Because of the potential for prejudice, however, due process requires that shackles be used only as a “last resort.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 344.

- It is however against the law to use shackles on juveniles..

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.

- You are actually disagreeing to agree here.. My reference was to the case in the video where there are multiple judges who share court rooms, thereby only being in “control” of the courtroom during session. I don’t know whether the judge that they called was the Chief Judge. Please also note that I said in “most cases”, and even the Chief Judge have to follow set guidelines by their state and can’t do whatever they like as I also wrote. Read this article; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_re_us/us_execution_deadline

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.

- This shows your ability to jump to false conclusions. If a Judge loses his job aka “license” to practice being a judge.. he may no longer practice being a judge. If you lose your job in being a grammar nazi on this website, you can always get a job as a grammar nazi on another website.. same if your in the business world – you don’t lose your right to do so, a judge does. I think we agree here that a judge does not have immunity from a decision or ruling they have to face state Commission on Judicial Conduct which can bar them from ever being a judge. The ruling of the judge however still stands until the appellate process is completed and ruling overturned. Every misconducted filed with the commission can make a Judge eligible to lose the job as a judge. And as I wrote only in cases that the Judge does something supremely idiotic.. which we don’t seem to disagree on, yet you highlighted it. If you prefer not to call it a license it is up to you – they revoke his ability of being a judge http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/faqs.asp

- Formal Proceedings against a Judge: “In certain circumstances, the Commission may vote formal proceedings. The Commission may itself hold a trial, or request the Texas Supreme Court to appoint a special master to conduct the proceeding and report findings of fact to the Commission. The Commission may request additional evidence, dismiss the case, issue a public censure, or recommend removal. Formal proceedings and related information become public when the Commission files formal charges. The Commission itself cannot remove a judge. Under the provisions of the formal proceeding process, only the Review Tribunal may order a judge removed from the bench. The Supreme Court retains appellate authority over the decision of the Review Tribunal.”

- Whatever ruling the court has made is in place and can only be overturned through the appellate process

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.

- Firstly you have taken this out of context and completely misunderstood it. Reasonable “rules” that the judge makes as far as security and dress code for the courthouse that then become “law” for that particular courtroom/house.. that is what we are talking about not any law that the judge conjures up in his room. In your case the judge can ask you to strip naked before entering the building and you have to abide by it.. and a lawyer can indeed challenge it if it goes against state law and the constitution by filing a complaint with state Commission on Judicial Conduct. As i noted, the LAWYER was being unreasonable as he did not wish to compromise and as a result loses his credibility.

- Should we put this to rest now or should we beat back and fourth with grammar?

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

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

a new meme…LIEBERALS!

But thanks…you pwned his dumb ass.

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.

Welcome to Oceania, pal.

Sincerely yours,
Winston

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/01/23/full-body-scanner-catches-cell-phone-misses-bomb-on-german-tv-video/#comments

Their excuse on that show was that the person need to stand sideways and that they only did a front/back scan.. well.. look at all the people that walk through while they are filming, not a single person turns around… they do one scan and then they walk out.