Revisiting the Notmygovernment.us forums

Forgive me for feeling nostalgic...

I wonder if LB Bork & friends have something new to say about me.

DrMeola.Florida Wrote:
Re: A Psychopath with No Life
Reply #8 - Jul 23rd, 2011 at 3:50pm

People like this more than like have no life, and since for what his personal reasons maybe he can not do what is required to come out of her as the bible has instructed us to do, so instead would rather bad mouth the good people doing the right thing, instead of helping to re-enforce the positive.

Short and to the point. I like that. But lets just say that we both have different sets of values - and I'm OK with that. However, I fail to see where in the Bible it instructs me to hitch my wagon to a sovereign citizen scam.

LB Bork wrote:
Re: A Psychopath with No Life
Reply #9 - Jul 31st, 2011 at 4:11pm

DrMeola.Florida wrote on Jul 23rd, 2011 at 3:50pm:

People like this more than like have no life, and since for what his personal reasons maybe he can not do what is required to come out of her as the Bible has instructed us to do, so instead would rather bad mouth the good people doing the right thing, instead of helping to re-enforce the positive.

There has been a lot of conjecture from Psycho Boy, WoahNeo. Too bad all of it is nonsense; there is a lot of jabber on the Blog that has nothing to do with PAC or its objectives. In short, he misrepresents things a lot. This idgit will not even respond to people that challange his nonsense; lucky that a lot of people see through it. In example of his stupid statements, he stated "He" could care less about what the case of Dyett vs Turner says... Like he (who hides behind the Internet under a moniker) matters along with his opinions. What a laugh-job this guy is.

Only a butt-puppet for the New World Order would spend this much time "attempting" to discredit PAC

Impressive lie.

I don't care what Dyett vs. Turner (1968, Utah Supreme Court) says because it isn't legally relevant. Dyett v. Turner doesn't make a ruling on the 14th Amendment. The actual case is based on whether or not Gerald J. Dyett had exhausted his state remedies before applying for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. It was decided that he did exhaust them, and the case was then turned over to Utah S.C., in which the same decision was reached. He knowingly and willingly waived his right to an attorney and a trial by jury by pleading guilty to check fraud. He was not entitled to habeas corpus.

Pay attention to this paragraph, emphasis mine:

We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.

The reason why Justice Ellett discussed the 14th Amendment for a large bulk of the decision was because he believed that the 14th Amendment circumvented state court and gave criminals a potential back door. But ultimately he cannot make a ruling against the 14th Amendment.

Though I have to admit, this is the most readable criticism of the 14th Amendment. I'll definitely make a separate blog post for Dyett v. Turner in the future.

The rest of the forums look exactly like I left it - unremarkable.