ACLU gets B-Slapped

[Bryan]

As we keep telling you, Bryan, you don't understand the law.

"We" as in Truth Fairy, Twizzler, and your other sock puppets?

The only way for him to do that is to prove he has standing. Apparently you didn't read the Supreme Court opinion that prompted this topic.

How is he going to prove standing?

You and your sock puppet buddy will make a way. Had you forgotten?

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82940

Apparently TF/Twizzler deliberately forgot what he wrote in his sheer desperation to invent an example of me not knowing the law.

If they are a lawyer, it kind of qualifies as one of those sleazy lawyer tricks.

[Guest Guest]

"We" as in Truth Fairy, Twizzler, and your other sock puppets?

As in everyone who's ever talked to you about the law, you moron. Ever since you first claimed that it doesn't violate the First Amendment to preach in a public school classroom. At least, that's where I first noticed your ignorance of the law.

[Guest Melanie]

"We" as in Truth Fairy, Twizzler, and your other sock puppets?

You and your sock puppet buddy will make a way. Had you forgotten?

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82940

Apparently TF/Twizzler deliberately forgot what he wrote in his sheer desperation to invent an example of me not knowing the law.

If they are a lawyer, it kind of qualifies as one of those sleazy lawyer tricks.

That is a non-answer. It's all ad hominem, and completely beside the point. The more indefensible his position is, the more he accuses and goes off on irrelevancies.

In order to have his lawyers heard in federal court, bin Laden would have to prove standing. That would require him to bring to the attention of the courts, and thereby the public, the matters that were the subjects of the searches.

That's one of the last things he wants to do. So why would he do it?

[Bryan]

That is a non-answer. It's all ad hominem, and completely beside the point. The more indefensible his position is, the more he accuses and goes off on irrelevancies.

Melanie, you're a dingbat.

The Truth Fairy took credit for something Twizzler wrote a number of days ago, strongly supporting the supposition that they are the same person. Twizzler (most likely the Truth Fairy) proposed an arrangement that would put the courts in charge of determining whether or not a plaintiff had standing.

Then the Truth Fairy complains about my ridicule of the Twizzler proposal by saying that the recent federal case found the plaintiffs did not have standing and that I therefore don't understand the law. It could hardly have been more obvious that I was responding to Twizzler's remedy for the problem of legal standing.

That's a bait and switch by the sock puppets, and you apparently bought it.

In order to have his lawyers heard in federal court, bin Laden would have to prove standing. That would require him to bring to the attention of the courts, and thereby the public, the matters that were the subjects of the searches.

That's one of the last things he wants to do. So why would he do it?

He would do it to get the surveillance to stop. Duh. Unless you think he and his lawyers aren't smart enough to stick with old information? It's the government that doesn't want the information to come out, since making it public tips off al Qaida as to where their security is breaking down.

Once again, Melanie opens her yap without any real concern for whether or not she's telling the truth.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82646

[Guest Twizzler]

"We" as in Truth Fairy, Twizzler, and your other sock puppets?

You and your sock puppet buddy will make a way. Had you forgotten?

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82940

Apparently TF/Twizzler deliberately forgot what he wrote in his sheer desperation to invent an example of me not knowing the law. If they are a lawyer, it kind of qualifies as one of those sleazy lawyer tricks.

You just quoted my argument back to Truth Squad, who doesn't seem to have forgotten anything. Obviously, you still don't understand the law, or the point.

You're saying that bin Laden will seek redress in our courts. That's obviously ridiculous for practical reasons, and no I'm not going to explain it to you.

It is also true that bin Laden would have to prove standing in order to use our court system. You still haven't answered the question: How is he going to do that? To answer the question, since you won't, he would have to prove that he has been the subject of surveillance. If you would stop thinking about sentient rocks and start thinking about the world we actually live in, you would realize that's among the last things he will ever do. You would also realize that he would stand less than a snowball's chance in hell of getting any legal relief in one of our courts.

[Bryan]

As in everyone who's ever talked to you about the law, you moron.

It looks more and more like they are the same person. Had you not noticed?

Ever since you first claimed that it doesn't violate the First Amendment to preach in a public school classroom.

At least, that's where I first noticed your ignorance of the law.

Have you ever read the First Amendment?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html

So, are you Twizzler, or the Truth Fairy?

[Guest Keith]

It looks more and more like they are the same person. Had you not noticed?

Have you ever read the First Amendment?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html

So, are you Twizzler, or the Truth Fairy?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" You have argued before that it is up to the supreme court to interpret the constitution.

Well, they have and you cannot preach in a public school classroom. For once maybe you will directly answer a question. How would you feel if a public school teacher was advocating the muslim faith? Please be specific about that question. I don't need one of your patented, long winded diatribes whining about strawmen and fallacies. Just answer the question. Semper Fi

[Guest Truth Squad]

Melanie, you're a dingbat.

The Truth Fairy took credit for something Twizzler wrote a number of days ago, strongly supporting the supposition that they are the same person. Twizzler (most likely the Truth Fairy) proposed an arrangement that would put the courts in charge of determining whether or not a plaintiff had standing.

Then the Truth Fairy complains about my ridicule of the Twizzler proposal by saying that the recent federal case found the plaintiffs did not have standing and that I therefore don't understand the law. It could hardly have been more obvious that I was responding to Twizzler's remedy for the problem of legal standing.

That's a bait and switch by the sock puppets, and you apparently bought it.

He would do it to get the surveillance to stop. Duh. Unless you think he and his lawyers aren't smart enough to stick with old information? It's the government that doesn't want the information to come out, since making it public tips off al Qaida as to where their security is breaking down.

Once again, Melanie opens her yap without any real concern for whether or not she's telling the truth.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82646

Dimwit,

What do you think is the likelihood of a federal court ordering the government to stop conducting surveillance on Osama bin Laden?

As for your claim that Twizzler "proposed an arrangement that would put the courts in charge of determining whether or not a plaintiff had standing," all you've done is tell us yet again that you do not understand the first thing about the law. The courts do determine whether or not plaintiffs have standing. No one has to propose it. It has been the law for more than 200 years. What do you think the case that prompted this topic was based on?

Good grief, man, do you take stupid pills?

[Guest Guest]

It looks more and more like they are the same person. Had you not noticed?

Have you ever read the First Amendment?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html

So, are you Twizzler, or the Truth Fairy?

LOL, I rest my case. You seriously think it doesn't violate the Constitution to preach in public school. What a fool.

[Bryan]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" You have argued before that it is up to the supreme court to interpret the constitution.

No, I don't argue that. I simply note that our system allows the courts to interpret the Constitution. The proper role of the Court is to interpret the law as written, and there's nothing in the First Amendment that can be reasonably construed to forbid preaching in class--even if it had been specified that the preacher was on the government payroll.

Well, they have and you cannot preach in a public school classroom.

Did you ever wonder how they came up with that, given that the First Amendment says nothing of the kind?

For once maybe you will directly answer a question.

I regularly answer questions. You must have me confused with Paul LaClair.

How would you feel if a public school teacher was advocating the muslim faith?

It depends on the circumstances. I would not regard it as a breach of the First Amendment, though. Not as reasonably construed.

Please be specific about that question.

If you want a specific answer then ask a question including specifics. I don't think that public schools should permit sectarian preaching in class, generally speaking (I might be able to think of circumstances that would make it OK), but I don't think that the First Amendment (as reasonably construed) has anything to do with it.

I don't need one of your patented, long winded diatribes whining about strawmen and fallacies. Just answer the question. Semper Fi

You're in dire need of my patented long-winded diatribes. But you need to read and understand them instead of going with your figurative patellar tendon reflex all the time.

[Bryan]

You just quoted my argument back to Truth Squad, who doesn't seem to have forgotten anything. Obviously, you still don't understand the law, or the point.

You proposed letting the courts decide standing independent of the current law, or else you'd have nothing to complain about with the decision that was made. Your proposal opens the way for Bin Laden to sue with proper standing. The Truth Fairy forgot that your proposal had nothing to do with the Court's decision on standing other than disagreeing with it in principle.

You're saying that bin Laden will seek redress in our courts. That's obviously ridiculous for practical reasons, and no I'm not going to explain it to you.

You shouldn't bother anyway, since it should have been obvious to you that I used a smiley to indicate that I was largely jesting. TF being like he is, he couldn't resist trying to use it to support yet another groundless assertion that I don't know the law. TF ignores your proposal going beyond current law, Twizzler ignores the smiley. Tag-team sock puppets.

It is also true that bin Laden would have to prove standing in order to use our court system.

So you didn't propose letting the courts decide standing on a more liberal basis, then? Will you blame that one on your sock puppet buddy or what?

You still haven't answered the question: How is he going to do that? To answer the question, since you won't, he would have to prove that he has been the subject of surveillance.

Under your proposal, he can apparently let the judge secretly access classified information to determine whether or not he has standing. If you understand the law then why would I have to explain that to you?

If you would stop thinking about sentient rocks and start thinking about the world we actually live in, you would realize that's among the last things he will ever do. You would also realize that he would stand less than a snowball's chance in hell of getting any legal relief in one of our courts.

You underestimate the nuttiness of some of our liberal federal court judges (like Judge Anna Diggs Taylor as exemplified in her NSA decision) in addition to ignoring smileys. You and the Truth Fairy make a good siamese sock-puppet tandem. Your ineptitude mutually complements.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2006/08/a...v_nsa_blow.html

[Guest Admiral Obvious]

I regularly answer questions. You must have me confused with Paul LaClair.

No, you don't. This is not Truth Squad, Twizzler, Keith, or any of the other regular 'guest' posters, so don't even attempt that retarded sockpuppet accusation. The one people who even come close to agreeing with you are 2dim and his alter-egos, "Patriot" and "Bushbacker". Every single other person is fed up with your huge posts in which nothing is actually said.

The Framers' intentions of keeping church and state separate were ridiculously clear. What's next, claiming there's no such thing as personal privacy or due process either because neither of those things are mentioned in the Constitution? Are you out of your damned mind? Get a clue, for crying out loud.

[Guest Truth Squad]

there's nothing in the First Amendment that can be reasonably construed to forbid preaching in class--even if it had been specified that the preacher was on the government payroll.

Even the most right wing legal scholars disagree with you. Even Paszkiewicz's lawyer disagrees with you, a position he acknowledged before the Board of Education.

This has been explained many times. Per the 1st and 14th amendments, taken together, a state may not support an establishment of religion. Since a body of the state pays the salary of public school teachers, they may not preach their religion in class. You may not like it, but that is the law, a subject on which you have demonstrated a profound ignorance.

[Bryan]

Even the most right wing legal scholars disagree with you.

Based on what?

You're a fraud, Truth Fairy. If so many disagree with me then you should have an easy time finding a representative quotation that expresses the principle behind the disagreement. Once you do, it will be apparent that the justification does not stem from the clear text of the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Even Paszkiewicz's lawyer disagrees with you, a position he acknowledged before the Board of Education.

So you were there? Inside LaClair's shoe, perhaps?

This has been explained many times. Per the 1st and 14th amendments, taken together, a state may not support an establishment of religion.

Taken together, eh? And despite your legal expertise you failed to note that my argument is specifically limited to the text of the First Amendment? You're either a horrible lawyer or a horribly dishonest person, from what I can tell.

Since a body of the state pays the salary of public school teachers, they may not preach their religion in class. You may not like it, but that is the law, a subject on which you have demonstrated a profound ignorance.

You may not like it, but there is nothing in the First Amendment that reasonably supports any of your above description.

Try reading the First Amendment. Seriously. Then quote me the part that supports your claim. Show us what a great lawyer you are.

[Bryan]

LOL, I rest my case. You seriously think it doesn't violate the Constitution to preach in public school. What a fool.

Meh. Yet another "Guest" who apparently hasn't gotten around to reading the First Amendment.

[Bryan]

No, you don't. This is not Truth Squad, Twizzler, Keith, or any of the other regular 'guest' posters,

If you're not Keith then why are you quoting my reply to Keith as if it was my reply to you? Just because you're stupid?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83171

so don't even attempt that retarded sockpuppet accusation.

Okay, Keith.

The one people who even come close to agreeing with you are 2dim and his alter-egos, "Patriot" and "Bushbacker". Every single other person is fed up with your huge posts in which nothing is actually said.

Whatever you say, Keith.

The Framers' intentions of keeping church and state separate were ridiculously clear.

Is it?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Why, then, if that's the case, didn't the Constitution forbid state and local governments to make laws respecting an establishment of religion? Why were they so inept in putting their "ridiculously clear" intentions into the body of the Constitution?

What's next, claiming there's no such thing as personal privacy or due process either because neither of those things are mentioned in the Constitution? Are you out of your damned mind? Get a clue, for crying out loud.

More proof that you're in desperate need of my long-winded diatribes.

Have a nice day, Keith.

[Guest Truth Squad]

You proposed letting the courts decide standing independent of the current law, or else you'd have nothing to complain about with the decision that was made.

No and no. Courts should never decide independent of the law. My view on the latest decision is that the Supreme Court decided the plaintiffs did not have standing. I wish they did, and I hope standing will be expanded to cover situations like this, but under the current law the decision is understandable.

I think most of us find your repeated smiley-faces childish.

[Guest Guest]

If you're not Keith then why are you quoting my reply to Keith as if it was my reply to you? Just because you're stupid?

I quoted the part of your post that I was responding to, you moron. I'm not Keith.

[Bryan]

No and no.

Once again you're responding to my reply to Twizzler as though you wrote Twizzler's post.

If you're this bad at handling sock puppets why bother with the pretense?

Courts should never decide independent of the law. My view on the latest decision is that the Supreme Court decided the plaintiffs did not have standing.

Yeah, well what about Twizzler's view, to which I was responding?

You're making yourself look like a complete idiot.

I wish they did, and I hope standing will be expanded to cover situations like this, but under the current law the decision is understandable.

Let's once again review Twizzler's statement, which appeared to advocate a more liberal method for the courts to determine standing.

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

<italics added for emphasis>

That pretty clearly seems to be a proposal to alter the method used by the court to determine standing in the case, and that method would apparently give Bin Laden his shot at having legal standing regardless of this court's decision.

It's pretty funny watching the sock puppets try to twist their way out of this.

I think most of us find your repeated smiley-faces childish.

Oh, well then you have every right to completely ignore what they plainly mean in the original context.

Again: Horrible lawyer or just horribly dishonest?

[Bryan]

Dimwit,

What do you think is the likelihood of a federal court ordering the government to stop conducting surveillance on Osama bin Laden?

Are you suggesting that the courts would fail to follow the law simply because Bin Laden is involved?

As for your claim that Twizzler "proposed an arrangement that would put the courts in charge of determining whether or not a plaintiff had standing," all you've done is tell us yet again that you do not understand the first thing about the law. The courts do determine whether or not plaintiffs have standing.

Not to the degree suggested by you posting as Twizzler, you twisted little sock puppet.

Apparently you can't be honest with yourself long enough to let you be honest with others.

No one has to propose it. It has been the law for more than 200 years.

When, then, did you/Twizzler suggest an alternative procedure to that followed by the court, you twisted little sock puppet?

What do you think the case that prompted this topic was based on?

Red herring--you as Twizzler found fault with the decision enough to recommend an alternate procedure--except you're not honest enough to admit it.

Good grief, man, do you take stupid pills?

Guaranteed no. Count your supply and you'll find all of them there (minus any that you might have taken or shared with Melanie and your little friend Twizzler).

Is it any wonder that we get just as much lying, distraction and appeal to ridicule from you as we received from LaClair?

[Guest Guest]

Meh. Yet another "Guest" who apparently hasn't gotten around to reading the First Amendment.

Of course, you clearly know what the First Amendment means better than the dozens of federal judges who have ruled differently. How pompous can you be?

[Guest Guest]

Once again you're responding to my reply to Twizzler as though you wrote Twizzler's post.

It's because we're all pissed at your dishonesty.

If you're this bad at handling sock puppets why bother with the pretense?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, fool. The list of people who DON'T think you're full of crap would be a lot shorter than the list of people who do.

[Guest Keith]

If you're not Keith then why are you quoting my reply to Keith as if it was my reply to you? Just because you're stupid?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83171

Okay, Keith.

Whatever you say, Keith.

Is it?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Why, then, if that's the case, didn't the Constitution forbid state and local governments to make laws respecting an establishment of religion? Why were they so inept in putting their "ridiculously clear" intentions into the body of the Constitution?

More proof that you're in desperate need of my long-winded diatribes.

Have a nice day, Keith.

I hate to burst your bubble, on second thought no I don't . That wasn't my post. You apparently have a new fan. Semper Fi .

[Guest Truth Squad]

Once again you're responding to my reply to Twizzler as though you wrote Twizzler's post.

If you're this bad at handling sock puppets why bother with the pretense?

Yeah, well what about Twizzler's view, to which I was responding?

You're making yourself look like a complete idiot.

Let's once again review Twizzler's statement, which appeared to advocate a more liberal method for the courts to determine standing.

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

<italics added for emphasis>

That pretty clearly seems to be a proposal to alter the method used by the court to determine standing in the case, and that method would apparently give Bin Laden his shot at having legal standing regardless of this court's decision.

It's pretty funny watching the sock puppets try to twist their way out of this.

You don't know who is involved or what the relationship is. If you did . . . well no, you would still make stupid remarks, which you persist in doing. Osama bin Laden is not going to bring this kind of a case before an American court no matter what the standing requirement is.

[Guest Truth Squad]

Are you suggesting that the courts would fail to follow the law simply because Bin Laden is involved?

They'll never face the question because bin Laden will never call attention to his activities in that fashion. However, if he did and the law allowed him some advantage, the American legal system would promptly be altered to make sure he couldn't accomplish his ends, including carving out an exception for known terrorists. Your argument is childish, but typically Bryan - nothing to do with the real world, like sentient rocks and moons made of cheese.

By the way, do you think American law enforcement might want to ask him a few questions about the whereabouts of his client?

You don't think things through, do you? Your premise is just silly.