I Have Tried Cases Before the Supreme Court

B

Born_To_Lose

Member
Location
Worldwide
I just completed reading all the posts from the thread "Gunshots At Trump Rally." I read one post (#124) which is a complete lie or falsehood, if you want me to be nice about it. I have tried cases before the USSC and I have spoken to many of the Justices from both parties. Other than the last Justice to be admitted to the bench, I can clearly verify that their integrity and truthfulness, along with their honesty and valiancy are all admirable people than many of us should attempt to emulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that post #124 is a complete fallacy (lie) because it cannot be proven and I find it to be an attack on the probity of the sitting members of the USSC Justices. If the poster does have evidence or can provide evidence that his remarks are truthful, I suggest that he forward his dossier to the DOJ at once. If he cannot, he should be willing to withdraw his claim and remove the post.
 

Born_To_Lose said:
I just completed reading all the posts from the thread "Gunshots At Trump Rally." I read one post (#124) which is a complete lie or falsehood, if you want me to be nice about it. I have tried cases before the USSC and I have spoken to many of the Justices from both parties. Other than the last Justice to be admitted to the bench, I can clearly verify that their integrity and truthfulness, along with their honesty and valiancy are all admirable people than many of us should attempt to emulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that post #124 is a complete fallacy (lie) because it cannot be proven and I find it to be an attack on the probity of the sitting members of the USSC Justices. If the poster does have evidence or can provide evidence that his remarks are truthful, I suggest that he forward his dossier to the DOJ at once. If he cannot, he should be willing to withdraw his claim and remove the post.
Click to expand...
The entire thread been locked. Theres probably good reason why itā€™s locked.
You bringing up posts in the locked thread is probably against the rules. For the record, this thread will probably get locked to and not from any action of my own. Youā€™d best be careful ā€˜born to loseā€™
 

Born_To_Lose said:
I just completed reading all the posts from the thread "Gunshots At Trump Rally." I read one post (#124) which is a complete lie or falsehood, if you want me to be nice about it. I have tried cases before the USSC and I have spoken to many of the Justices from both parties. Other than the last Justice to be admitted to the bench, I can clearly verify that their integrity and truthfulness, along with their honesty and valiancy are all admirable people than many of us should attempt to emulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that post #124 is a complete fallacy (lie) because it cannot be proven and I find it to be an attack on the probity of the sitting members of the USSC Justices. If the poster does have evidence or can provide evidence that his remarks are truthful, I suggest that he forward his dossier to the DOJ at once. If he cannot, he should be willing to withdraw his claim and remove the post.
Click to expand...
What part of #124 is a lie ? The technical specs of the weapon , or what ?
 
I went on a tour with a group of fellow Troopers from other states. There were about 12 Troopers in the unit. I signed up voluntarily to go. It was enjoyable, interesting and educational. I got to see a lot of faces from TV and I also got to see RBG, which is really why I went. I was hoping we would have an opportunity to speak with the Justices, but that didn't happen, at least not on that particular day. Does it ever? I don't know, but if you ever tour D.C., I would recommend going, if there is anything going on that day and if there is seating available. I have heard it is hard for the public to get a seat at times.
 
Certain things are suspicious with the Court.
-------------------------------------------------
One is an American can be above the law if he is elected.
-------------------------------------------------
The Court may just summarily overrule a former court's ruling of 20 /40 / 100 years ago because they want to.
That seems to be the job of the Congress.
____________________________________________

Thats just a thought. Mostly it a taking the position that if he can I can.
What does the phrase. Government of the people, by the People for the people mean if?
________________________
Maybe a better thought is? An amendment from the people to the constitution allowing the Elected to be above the law of the land.
_________________________________
How long can we endure all the fake crap.
____________________________________
Its like an addict and Spouse getting Tax Payer money cause they can't hold a job.
 
Last edited:
papa tiger said:
The Court may just summarily overrule a former court's ruling of 20 years ago because they want to.
Click to expand...
They have to be Petitioned first. They ruled once the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, now the bulk of them do through subsequent rulings.
 
That applies to a lower court's ruling, and basically not a former Supreme Court's ruling.
It bypasses the famous clout Lincoln has with his speech. Our System of government may
be finished if it is accepted behaviors. God status is for Dictators, Pharos, Kings, tyrants and such.
 
Last edited:
Born_To_Lose said:
I just completed reading all the posts from the thread "Gunshots At Trump Rally." I read one post (#124) which is a complete lie or falsehood, if you want me to be nice about it. I have tried cases before the USSC and I have spoken to many of the Justices from both parties. Other than the last Justice to be admitted to the bench, I can clearly verify that their integrity and truthfulness, along with their honesty and valiancy are all admirable people than many of us should attempt to emulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that post #124 is a complete fallacy (lie) because it cannot be proven and I find it to be an attack on the probity of the sitting members of the USSC Justices. If the poster does have evidence or can provide evidence that his remarks are truthful, I suggest that he forward his dossier to the DOJ at once. If he cannot, he should be willing to withdraw his claim and remove the post.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's possible to speak to someone and then be able to verify their absolute, "integrity, honesty, and valiancy." I also don't think that because something can't be proven that makes it a complete fallacy.

I have no idea what the original post #124 was about or who made it, but we're all just chatting here, sometimes making sweeping judgments, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes no idea what the heck we're talking about. We have the right to call a person on it if we disagree, but I see no reason to start a special thread to ask for withdrawal of a post or make such a big darn deal about it.
 
Della said:
I don't think it's possible to speak to someone and then be able to verify their absolute, "integrity, honesty, and valiancy." I also don't think that because something can't be proven that makes it a complete fallacy.

I have no idea what the original post #124 was about or who made it, but we're all just chatting here, sometimes making sweeping judgments, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes no idea what the heck we're talking about. We have the right to call a person on it if we disagree, but I see no reason to start a special thread to ask for withdrawal of a post or make such a big darn deal about it.
Click to expand...
Post #124 delt with the basic simi auto firearm and its working parts. The Point was reliability I believe. Not bad stuff.

I think an addition of AK47 et all and its replacements down the years from Russia can cause a real problem with underdevelopments.
Mostly the (Bolt action semi Auto 50 Cal / in-between / 308 Cal. Rifles) are real deal firearms to outlaw. Obviously big gamer hunters like large Calibers and say yes.
 
Last edited:
Born_To_Lose said:
I just completed reading all the posts from the thread "Gunshots At Trump Rally." I read one post (#124) which is a complete lie or falsehood, if you want me to be nice about it. I have tried cases before the USSC and I have spoken to many of the Justices from both parties. Other than the last Justice to be admitted to the bench, I can clearly verify that their integrity and truthfulness, along with their honesty and valiancy are all admirable people than many of us should attempt to emulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that post #124 is a complete fallacy (lie) because it cannot be proven and I find it to be an attack on the probity of the sitting members of the USSC Justices. If the poster does have evidence or can provide evidence that his remarks are truthful, I suggest that he forward his dossier to the DOJ at once. If he cannot, he should be willing to withdraw his claim and remove the post.
Click to expand...
This is post #124 of that thread:

"But AR is a trick label. Most people think the AR stands for Assault Rifle. It doesn't. It stands for ArmaLite Rifle. An AR is not designed to assault people, it's designed for rapid repeat fire with lightweight cartridges and without heating up and/or splitting the barrel, or any part of the gun for that matter. A lot of guns are designed for rapid repeat fire, and a lot of them are handguns."

??
 
Born_To_Lose said:
I just completed reading all the posts from the thread "Gunshots At Trump Rally." I read one post (#124) which is a complete lie or falsehood, if you want me to be nice about it. I have tried cases before the USSC and I have spoken to many of the Justices from both parties. Other than the last Justice to be admitted to the bench, I can clearly verify that their integrity and truthfulness, along with their honesty and valiancy are all admirable people than many of us should attempt to emulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that post #124 is a complete fallacy (lie) because it cannot be proven and I find it to be an attack on the probity of the sitting members of the USSC Justices. If the poster does have evidence or can provide evidence that his remarks are truthful, I suggest that he forward his dossier to the DOJ at once. If he cannot, he should be willing to withdraw his claim and remove the post.
Click to expand...
How many times has Thomas had to revise his disclosure statements?
 
againstthegrain said:
+. How many times has Thomas had to revise his disclosure statements?
Click to expand...
Why would I be concerned with that? I only know what everyone else does. Justices Thomas and Alito have been in the news lately due to being asked to revise their disclosure of gifts that need to be revealed over the last several years. According to the EGA, Supreme Court Justices are supposed to report any gifts for the public to view. AOC opened up the inquiry, but she left one of the Justices off the list, Sotomayor.

I haven't been to the Supreme Court since 2009. I have seen the Justices quite a few times since then, but we don't speak about personal issues. That would be pure stupidity and a good way to lose friends that I have known for several years.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top