PACINLAW Butthurt (comedy gold)

2068360802 Nov 18 10 08:22:03 PM bos politics PACinlaw butthurt

After clicking on the top link and clicking on the Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National), it looks like your getting your shit wrecked by armchair lawyers. Keep in mind that I have nothing to do with the deletion with the Wikipedia article, I am just a passer by to your CL post.

* Do not delete. Valid Reference. The term "State National" is taken directly from the United States Code, as evidenced in the article, and is grounded in the principles of the foundational law of the United States of America. pacgroups (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.141.87 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Pacgroups (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I can't stop lollin' at the quote above. "Please don't take my made up shit down! I got a wife and kids...", then later in the annotations: "These users are conspiring against me, the evidence is there, and I'm not going to quote what the hell I'm talking about, thus making your job harder. I'm right, otherwise, good luck fucker!" From this point on, I'm thinking - Man, you ARE an asshole! These users gave you CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. Your material at pacinlaw, islandmakers, et. al. IS disjointed and cobbled together. For the love of CHRIST, fix it! Your material isn't edited well enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, let alone your non-stop spamming on CL.

However, while it does pain me to say that your nonsense is pretty original, it's your originality that really bit you in the ass. Even if you're right about everything, your article doesn't conform to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a law journal, or a significant court case/event. Wikipedia only accepts articles if their sources come from published experts or from the news. You are not one of them until A) your material gets published in a law review journal, B) or have a test case awaiting trial/received verdict.

As far as Google is concerned, all that you really did is milk gullible people by selling an overpriced book, lectures, and services. Not impressive. Maybe if your Red Amendment book is a best seller that anyone can buy at the bookstore you would be looking at a different situation on Wikipedia, though I'd still think you suck.

So tell us all, why is your material not peer reviewed? It's not hard.

By the way, Wikipedia has a mechanism that monitors new users in order to keep vandalism down. That is the reason why everyone is all over you all-of-a-sudden. No big conspiracy, you're just dumb asshole holding a big neon sign that says "I took a shit on Wikipedia, wanna see?!"


---------------

http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pol/2066387865.html


The code and concept is clear. You have no idea what PAC is and has accomplished. Not only does it provide remedy, it is a means to expose the evil of the 14th Amendment. You appear


to be another self-important, know it all. Title 8 USC §1101(a)(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. That can't be made any clearer! And, if you are


not that, you are this, Title 8 USC §1101(a)(22) - the term “national of the United States” means: (A) a citizen of the United States. I can understand that some people who read case law may


not have the ability of critical thought.


Facts is, that many "State Nationals" have received their personal remedy,


but the goal is to bring others aboard for the reason stated below.


State Nationals are not in this movement for personal gain,


but rather for the protection of the Nation as a whole.


We Didn't make up the Definition, it's theirs! We are State citizens (nationals), with their definition.


Understanding "Personal" and State Sovereignty is key to Our own State, being sovereign.


A Federal citizen (a United State Citizen) can not and does not make a State Sovereign.


A State is not Sovereign without the it's People being Sovereign.


This is where it is acknowledged that State Nationals ARE a Political Movement.


A movement for State Sovereignty.


By being a United States Citizen (a Federal Citizen) ONLY empowers a illegitimate,


unlawful Federal Government giving them Authority over the States.


Their is NO Such thing as State Sovereignty without the majority of its Citizens being "State Nationals" (Sovereign!)


http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pol/2066806886.html

This is comedy gold right here. I highly recommend clicking on the Wikipedia link "State Nationals". LB Bork finds himself against every Wikipedia editor and gets tossed to the curb without passion or remorse.

I was responding to a post before that post (linked in the post?) that read something along the lines of "help, help, we're under attack in wikipedia." He dragged so much fail in I couldn't ignore it. I had to mock him on Craigslist.

Also, I still believed at the time that RJ Mills is a mastermind, and worked with LB Bork directly, or that LB Bork may be spammer too. That's why my post reads a little weird.

About Title 8 USC §1101(a)(21 and 22) :

(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term “national of the United States” means

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

I'm pretty sure that state in (21) is not meant to confer that "national" = "state national", but simply a generic way to say that there are countries and states in the world, but not referring to a state of the United States. Also, the US uses this distinction of US citizenship: Citizen of US, resident of state. It has always been that way. Do read the wikipedia AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National. I trust random wikipedians to know more about law than LB Bork, or myself.

Let me know if the link doesn't work, because LB Bork's inability to effectively argue his case without resorting to putdowns and desperate measures should not be missed.