A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Where no two people are likely to agree.
Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:21 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist a day ago wrote: I'd be surprised if a Non USA citizen acting outside the USA can be charged under the Espionage Act
bobbo_the_Pragmatist today wrote: On Friday, Mr. Prigozhin was one of 13 Russians indicted by a federal grand jury for interfering in the American election.
You mean these Russian citizens in Russia? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:24 am

What are you hebephrenic about Matt? Mr. Prigozhin was not charged under the Espionage Act. It was a different "ticket" if you will.

Try to be relevant.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The contract does not obviate other civil and criminal law statutes. Silly to post such nonsense.
I never said it did. I simply stated that the terms and conditions of the contract entered into on purchase of the ticket defined the theatre owners rights. , which is what you asked.

You are so stupid you changed goal posts to the person committing the act's rights.
:lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:26 am

.........simple NOT TRUE. downright silly. I'm out.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: why can't you yell Fire in a theater when there is no fire?...……..from the theater owners perspective???
Matthew Ellard wrote: Step 1. What are the terms and conditions of the contract entered into when you purchased the ticket? ( Hint : It's contract law )
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The contract does not obviate other civil and criminal law statutes. Silly to post such nonsense.
You moron. the crime is not commited by the theatre owner but the person shouting fire.

You specifically asked about the theatre own's perspective. That was your pathetic attempt to change goal posts. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:44 am

..........because the theater owner has property rights. Some but not anywhere near all such property rights are transferred temporarily to theater goeers via the ticket. Amusing you think the contract rights are mutually exclusive.

I know.......its hard to keep up when you think your on top.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6046
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by Tom Palven » Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:40 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
Tom Palven wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 am
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of freedom of speech or of the press..."
The US Espionage Act (1917) specifically sets aside the first amendment if certain conditions exist. This is the act Assange is being charged with.

I have no idea why you and Bobbo think Assange can't be charged under the USA Espionage Act 1917, when he has specifically been indicted under that Act.
Once again, Matt, do you think that Eugene Debs' first amendment rights were protected and that justice was served when he he was convicted and sent to prison under the 1917 Espionage Act for speaking out against the WW I military draft?

I think that this is a relevant question relating to your attitude regarding free speech.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:42 pm

I just reread the first two pages of this thread. Out of Breath made a good post. Matts position is pretty well telegraphed. Nonetheless.............the most beneficial service of this forum is for our ideas and positions to grow/change in the contest and consideration of arguments? So, I second Tom's request just above. I was going to draft a similar request regarding Assange. but the two are the same question.

Let's see if there has been any growth and change.

I think Tom has already stated that Debs was "innocent" which is in line with the Schenck case being overturned.................if anyone cares what the Supreme Court rules (Matt????).................So...the more open question really is about Assange.

My own view expressly is I value TRUTH over Lies. This negates any dispute about details like who when where and so forth..............as long as, and consistent with First Amendment protection.....the Truth, ie what is said or posted, is actually the Truth, or even close enough and not a dodge to include propaganda or misdirection.....I know how some like to quibble and confuse Capital Truth with whatever some advocate/spin meister might say.
From everything I have seen, Assange only published the truth, or close enough to it. Some might manufacture a claim that some kind of National Security Interest was involved/revealed/sacrificed. Absent such revelations revealing "troop movements" or the equivalent, I don't think those arguments stand up even if true. The TRUTH is that important......more than the excuses to protect lies.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: ..........because the theater owner has property rights.
What has property rights got to do with someone calling fire in a theater? Are you so stupid, you think there is a difference between a promoter leasing a space for a one off show and a person who owns the actual building.....if someone yells "fire"?

I have already informed you that Justice Holmes states exactly what his orbiter is in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is. At no point does he mention "property rights". You are making stuff up as you go and somehow got confused with the legal concept of "real property".

Do you have a case you can show me that connect "property rights" with customers shouting "Fire" ? That's a big "No" ,isn't it?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Some but not anywhere near all such property rights are transferred temporarily to theater goeers via the ticket. Amusing you think the contract rights are mutually exclusive. I know.......its hard to keep up when you think your on top.
This last paragraph doesn't even make sense. :lol: :lol:

"Real Property at Law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:29 am

Derp.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:46 am

Tom Palven wrote:Matt, do you think that Eugene Debs' first amendment rights were protected and that justice was served when he he was convicted and sent to prison under the 1917 Espionage Act for speaking out against the WW I military draft?
The argument of the Federal Government was that Debs was attempting to arouse mutiny and treason by preventing the drafting of soldiers into the United States Army. This type of speech was outlawed in the United States with the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. The defense argued that Debs was entitled to the rights of free speech provided for in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. This was one of three cases decided in 1919 in which the Court had upheld convictions that restricted free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States

Unanimous Decision / US Supreme Court / Conviction upheld
Chief Justice Edward D. White
Justice Joseph McKenna ·
Justice Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
Justice William R. Day ·
Justice Willis Van Devanter
Justice Mahlon Pitney ·
Justice James C. McReynolds
Justice Louis Brandeis ·
Justice John H. Clarke

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:08 am

Matt: why don't you answer direct questions?

Try again..................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:08 am
Matt: why don't you answer direct questions?

Try again..................
No. I have directly answered the question directly using the ratio decidendi of the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, There was a foreign beneficiary, Germany. There was a call by Eugene Debs and publication calling for the refusal of citizens to comply with USA conscription (the military). Eugene Deb was knew the law before he made the publication. All the legislative thresholds were there, the ratio from Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was specifically invoked and he was convicted and also lost on appeal.

It is you and Tom Palven's problem if you don't have any grounds for appeal.

You may be aware that Germany did exactly the same in Russia, by paying for Lenin's publications in Russia, then putting Lenin on a train, from Switzerland, through Germany, to Russia to get Russia to leave the war. Russia left the war.

Let me know when you two construct your appeal submissions.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:25 am

One of the more entertaining claims you and Tom Palven made was that Julian Assange cannot be indicted as a foreign citizen, whereas the legislation states that he can.

However at no point did you ask me if Wikileaks, a foreign company registered in Iceland, is protected by the first amendment for the USA press.
:lol:

Is Pravda covered by the USA's first amendment? :lol:

What about Osama Bin Laden's publications stating that all Americans must be killed?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:37 pm

Matt: We keep asking you what YOU THINK. You have answered you are in lock step with the Supremes in their application of the Espionage Act re Debs. Ok. I can accept that lack of imagination. ((Actually, I don't know enough about Debs.....but the squibs I have read make me think he stepped over pure speech into urging action.....so, yeah....Jail for Debs.))

The question is till open re Assange: what do you think should happen to Assange???? Your own values. Jail or Monument?????????????? This obviates the interesting questions you ask just above. Happy to engage them when you do the same to the long standing question.

Jail or Monument.????? You have a blank slate: no laws apply. Just your common good sense and decency. GO=================>
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:22 pm

bobbo wrote: Matt: We keep asking you what YOU THINK.
Assange is an idiot, who thought the political left spectrum was behind him in Australia. He wanted to become an Australian senator. However, he wanted notoriety again and took money and information from Russia. The Russian outwitted Assange and Assange conspired with Russia to place a right wing idiot ( Trump) in the Whitehouse. Assange and his tiny remaining group sit around all day feeling betrayed by the left, while the Russians are running Wikileaks. The Left political spectrum in Australia, see Assange as the idiot who put a fascist in, in the USA. They hate him.
bobbo wrote: You have answered you are in lock step with the Supremes in their application of the Espionage Act re Debs.
As you are unable to offer reason to appeal the case and it is your Supreme Court........so are you.
bobbo wrote: The question is till open re Assange: what do you think should happen to Assange????
Christ you are stupid. I have said this over and over again. Assange should be offered due process and go to a trail and let his defense lawyers do what they can.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:42 pm

......and what should the result be?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:......and what should the result be?
I don't know. I haven't heard the defense arguments. That's the point of being a judge. You have to listen to both sides of the argument.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34633
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Gord » Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:22 pm
Assange should be offered due process and go to a trail and let his defense lawyers do what they can.
trial

If he just goes to a trail he might not come back. :P
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:18 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:20 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:......and what should the result be?
I don't know. I haven't heard the defense arguments. That's the point of being a judge. You have to listen to both sides of the argument.
Sorry Matty Boy: but you've been asked to THINK FOR YOURSELF. So far, you have been unable to do so. How come? The question to you is to be the wheel, not the cog.

Palven and myself have already answered: Monument. We value Truth over Lies. You appear to value staying in line with what you are told.

JAIL or MONUMENT: What do you THINK...Matt?

After that, but much in the same mode: why wouldn't Pentagon Papers cause an immediate dismissal of the case?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:24 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Sorry Matty Boy: but you've been asked to THINK FOR YOURSELF.
What is your problem? I read the rulings and agree with them. You refuse to read any of the rulings and thus wouldn't have a clue if you agreed with them or not. Can you se ehow stupid you are?

What makes you exceptionally stupid is that I did offer my personal opinion that the Germans in WWI did pay for Lenin's communist publications and transported Lenin, from Switzerland, through Germany to remove Russian from the war. I stated how this was similar to Germany's activities in the USA with Eugene Debs asking people to avoid conscription.

I assume you don't know who Lenin is, as you are a complete idiot who thought Wikileaks, in Iceland, was a USA publishing company protected by the first amendment of the USA's constitution. .
:lol: :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: JAIL or MONUMENT: What do you THINK...Matt?
Again, as you are retarded, I have already informed you that I do not have all the facts to make a decision. I will simply wait for Julian Assange's defense team to lay out their defense.

I understand that you and Tom Palven don't care about facts. I can see that in every one of your posts. :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:11 am

Ha, ha. Matt....you are a legend in your own mind. Still a puzzle to me why you won't state a simple truth: your own opinion. More based on VALUES, which argumentatively you lack, than on so called facts.

The facts for my value based opinion are that Assange in RELEVANT part only acted to publish papers that he had no part in stealing in the first place beyond letting it be known that he was in the business of publishing secrets. It doesn't matter then who stole them or why.

After that, the Pentagon Papers case is dispositive in my view although it dealt with prior restraint.....but still the relevant issues are presented here and pros and cons of the issues here: https://firstamendmentwatch.org/wikilea ... the-press/.

Don't clients come to you for advice on how their cases would likely turn out? What do you do?? Take their money and say you can't tell them until after their cases is decided? Is that what you do Matt????? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Maybe tell them about what Germany did in WW2?

If you spent one tenth of your time in honest consideration of values that affect what kind of society we are making for ourselves instead of 90% of your time spent mindlessly berating people and sending them on wild goose chases........you could have answered this question for yourself by page two of this thread and also have a position to advise all those who are curious................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Ha, ha. Matt....you are a legend in your own mind.
Nope. I'm a lawyer. As you refuse to read the actual cases yourself, you don't have a clue if you agree with the Supreme Court or not. That means you don't know either the precedent or how the judges reached their decision.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The facts for my value based opinion are that Assange in RELEVANT
Set out all the facts concerning Assange. I don't know what they are. I am waiting for his defense team to disclose those facts during "discovery". You do know what "discovery" is don't you? :lol: :lol:

What is Discovery at Law?
https://legalvision.com.au/what-is-discovery/
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:He (Assange) had no part in stealing in the first place beyond letting it be known that he was in the business of publishing secrets.
You mean he knowingly received stolen private property? Is that legal now? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are just stupid and confused Bobbo.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:37 pm

Kinda Ironic.

The Title of this Thread.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:45 am

Julian Assange's cat has left the Ecuadorian embassy,. last week, suggesting Assange is also about to leave.

https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2018/1 ... refresh_ce

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am

Moved to correct thread from here.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27982&p=692429#p692322
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: When did you look up the Espionage Act and observe it was one page long with Nine Sections and when I described it as such you challenged me that I had not read it?
1) I read it when Assange applied to move to Russia in 2012 after hosting his Russian Today show and his application to move to Russia.
2) As you are an idiot you didn't realise that I had to have already read the Act when I was quoting the interpretative court cases, above, in this thread. You still don't understand how the Supreme Court interprets acts under stare decisis.
:lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The only reasonable inference is that you had not read it yourself
Read the above paragraph and have a friend explain it to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: 3. You have referenced the Assange charges many times stating with authority that he should stand trial for violating the Espionage act, BUT those charges are under seal. How do you know what is in sealed charges?
because it is the only charge that leads to execution and the UK government negotiated the removal of execution as a sentence. Are you really saying you didn't work that out on your own?

Any other questions Bobbo?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:40 am

Well, since you are being partially responsive, I'll go along. After all, it would be hypocritical of me to complain about you not answering direct questions and then not doing so myself. so: in my normal and demonstrating style of directly answering posts point by point:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
Moved to correct thread from here.
Just a garden variety example of your diversionary tactics thinking it gives you some kind of advantage or points? But...it is good to stick to the subject of the various threads. I support the move.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: When did you look up the Espionage Act and observe it was one page long with Nine Sections and when I described it as such you challenged me that I had not read it?
1) I read it when Assange applied to move to Russia in 2012 after hosting his Russian Today show and his application to move to Russia.
You do love the partial quote .....full of misdirection and mischaracterization. You avoid the POINT of the question which was and still is: why do you ask me if I have read the Act when I posted it was one page long and made up of 9 sections? Unless you disagree with this description or haven't read the Act yourself, such an imputation really doesn't make any sense at all. EXPLAIN yourself? So wrapped up in denigrating everyone you engage, you lose track of simple objective truths. Just look.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
2) As you are an idiot you didn't realise that I had to have already read the Act when I was quoting the interpretative court cases, above, in this thread.
Simple fact: you don't have to have read the act to quote interpretative cases. Its a "good idea" to have done so, but not necessary. Nonsense to post otherwise. Contra: indeed I HAD TO HAVE READ THE ACT, when I accurately describe it as one page long and Nine Sections.....facts that you mock as if made up. Down right: silly.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
You still don't understand how the Supreme Court interprets acts under stare decisis.
And here is the bell ringer. Its YOU Matt who don't understand how the Supremes interpret acts under stare decisis. I corrected you before on this point........and as usual, you continue to ignore a valuable learning experience. Question 6: Tell us Matt: YES OR NO: is the Supreme Court bound by stare decisis?
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am

The only reasonable inference is that you had not read it yourself Read the above paragraph and have a friend explain it to you.
No Matt. I described the Act as One Page long consisting of 9 sections. you have refused to respond to this indication that indeed I have read the act. Ha, ha.....I do have some "fear" I read/googled too fast and read something other than the act, or that you have read supporting regulations of unknown length, but....I'll wait for your description of the Act rather than repetitive baseless demonstrated incorrect ab homimen attacks.

Q-7: How long is the Espionage Act Matt?

Q-8: How many Sections does it have????????

Silly Hooman.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: 3. You have referenced the Assange charges many times stating with authority that he should stand trial for violating the Espionage act, BUT those charges are under seal. How do you know what is in sealed charges?
because it is the only charge that leads to execution and the UK government negotiated the removal of execution as a sentence. Are you really saying you didn't work that out on your own?
the issue is not what I was/am able to work out, but rather what YOU are able to work out........given you don't answer direct questions, you bring this on yourself. Now, IIRC the UK gubment said they would refuse extradition because they do not allow extradition to countries filing charges that carry a death penalty and they received assurances that the Death Penalty was not being requested. Thats a lot of gray area for what Assange could be charged with. Given I never followed the Assange case closely at all, lets do the Google..........................................(Assange extradited UK).......well, it appears my memory is a bit garbled as is Matts: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... ve-embassy. My read of that link is that UK has simply given Ecuador assurances they would not extradict a person to "any" country where his life would be in danger. AKA: no reference to and objectively no need for any access to any sealed documents. Interestingly we have this statement:
"US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange, but last month a mistake in a document filed in an unrelated case hinted that criminal charges may have been prepared in secret."
Ha, ha........."prepared" aka: NOT EVEN FILED.

See what happens when you dissemble Matt?................YOU get caught up.
\
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
Any other questions Bobbo?
Well, yeah! At last request, you were given FOUR questions to answer. You have answered two of them showing you made up your "facts" out of whole cloth or poorly remembered predicates. so.....You have questions 2 & 3 answered but needing clarification if not a total rewrite while questions 4 and 5 remain totally untouched. An OK start for a beginner......but give it another try. You also have Questions 6-7-8 added above that should be answered along the way with your rewrite and directed attention.

I look forward to your responses........................and will double check out of curiosity how the issue of "sealed documents" got into the discussion. I think I raised it first but THAT followed on your assertion that Assange had been charged? I'll make that Extra Credit Q-9. Were there actual "charges filed" or was it only a possibility or a pending action: making your arguments even more facetious.


Ha, ha.............dismal.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:09 am

Were there actual charged filed?
//// https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nat ... story.html

Consistent with the earlier link on the same subject: no official confirmation and the possible filing of charges is only an "inference" drawn by certain non-governmental people. Its clear what Matt thinks the UK had access to and what they bargained for is purely made up or at best a garbled up confusion over the discussion between UK and Ecuadorian officials.

Just .................look.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Moved to correct thread from here.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:Just a garden variety example of your diversionary tactics........
No Bobbo. You were posting about Assange in the Klinko thread. Did you forget again? :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: When did you look up the Espionage Act and observe it was one page long with Nine Sections and when I described it as such you challenged me that I had not read it?
Matthew Ellard wrote: 1) I read it when Assange applied to move to Russia in 2012 after hosting his Russian Today show and his application to move to Russia.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You do love the partial quote ....
I didn't quote anyone you idiot. :lol: :lol:


Matthew Ellard wrote: 2) As you are an idiot you didn't realise that I had to have already read the Act when I was quoting the interpretative court cases, above, in this thread.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Simple fact: you don't have to have read the act to quote interpretative cases (about the act).
Yes you do Bobbo, otherwise you do not know what they are interpreting. Are you really that senile? :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. Its YOU Matt who don't understand how the Supremes interpret acts under stare decisis.
You are senile. Read the above paragraph and let it sink in. :lol: :lol;
The Supremes.jpg
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I described the Act as One Page long consisting of 9 sections.
And I linked the interpretative cases that allow interpretation of the act. Did you forget again? Tom Palven said the SCOTUS was a fascist for his interpretation as Tom Palven didn't know what "unanimous decision" meant.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: indeed I have read the act.
I asked how Assange can be failed to be indictable under the Act and you ran away and didn't answer my question.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How do you know what is in sealed charges?
Matthew Ellard wrote: because it is the only charge that leads to execution and the UK government negotiated the removal of execution as a sentence. Are you really saying you didn't work that out on your own?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: the issue is not what I was/am able to work out, but rather what YOU are able to work out........
I just told you. did you forget again? :lol: :lol:


Now I know you are senile and having problems with the formatting, but try not to post after sundown and you won't get the font colours confused again.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matt thinks the UK had access to and what they bargained for is purely made up or at best a garbled up confusion over the discussion between UK and Ecuadorian officials.
According to Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno, the deal between Ecuador and the UK wouldn't have guaranteed Assange's freedom outright, but would have given some assurance that professional secrets-dealer would not be at risk of execution should he be arrested and charged.

You're senile, right? The President of Ecuador is an Ecuadorian official. :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:30 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: When did you look up the Espionage Act and observe it was one page long with Nine Sections and when I described it as such you challenged me that I had not read it?
1) I read it when Assange applied to move to Russia in 2012 after hosting his Russian Today show and his application to move to Russia.


That did catch my attention but I didn't reference it in this context: it reminds me of Hillary's BS comment that she was named after the famous mountaineer who summited Mr Everest. Fact is though, THAT Hilary climbed his mountain a few years after "that other" Hilary was born. Timelines: niggly facts that red flag all kinds of "frailties."

So, I'm kinda curious........why did you read the Espionage Act in 2012? Did you think Assange was guilty of espionage by wanting to move to Russia or in revealing Climategate papers or some other issue of less than shattering impact? Or were you just prescient enough to suspect that 4 years later he would be releasing Russian hacked emails?

Are you THAT GREAT MATT????? ...............are you? Or was that a typo? I hate typos myself. Make too many of them.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:52 am

Noting the cross posting.

Your repetitive mischaracterization, diversion, and repetitive non responsiveness is.....................boring.

but I'll say it again for anyone else that might have the question in mind: The Supremes are NOT BOUND in any way by Stare Decisis. THEY MAKE Stare Decisis FOR THE LOWER COURTS TO FOLLOW. Simple question with simple direct answers. Not your misdirection.

I may re-engage when you get within a cab ride of being responsive.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:52 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:........when Assange applied to move to Russia in 2012 after hosting his Russian Today show and his application to move to Russia.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:That did catch my attention but I didn't reference it in this context: it reminds me of Hillary's BS comment that she .......
Now that's funny. You really didn't know Assange worked for Russia Today and made a visa application to move to Russia in 2012. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/
The Julian Assange Show

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:The Supremes are NOT BOUND in any way by Stare Decisis. THEY MAKE Stare Decisis FOR THE LOWER COURTS TO FOLLOW.
They are bound to stare decisis you complete idiot as the Supreme Court has to overturn previous Supreme Court Decisions under the rules of stare decisis on appeal.

You do realise slavery ended?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are Idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Did you think Assange was guilty of espionage by wanting to move to Russia or in revealing Climategate papers or some other issue of less than shattering impact?
You complete idiot. Assange was first indicted by Obama's government in 2010 or 2011 under the Espionage Act. . :lol: :lol:

It was Senator Dianne Feinstein who asked Attorney General Holder to prosecute Assange specifically under the Espionage Act in 2010. She still sits on the senate intelligence committee and instructs the DNI.

It is Trump who doesn't want Assange interrogated........for obvious reasons.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:40 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:56 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:The Supremes are NOT BOUND in any way by Stare Decisis. THEY MAKE Stare Decisis FOR THE LOWER COURTS TO FOLLOW.
They are bound to stare decisis you complete idiot as the Supreme Court has to overturn previous Supreme Court Decisions under the rules of stare decisis on appeal.

You do realise slavery ended?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I am curious as to what you mean. Are we discussing SD as a glass half full/half empty sort of different focus.....or what? I agree the SC says it is following or applying "the rules" on appeal or SD on appeal (sic--I don't think they say that, but rather other words that can be fairly referred to that way for most purposes, but not the purpose of this exposition.) but they DON'T HAVE TO. Typically, the way prior SC case decisions are overturned is exactly because some lower court has not followed them and its the Job of the SC to order SD be followed as you have it...........OR.........they can overturn prior SC decisions, agree with the lower court holding otherwise, and create new SD until it too is overturned. The lower courts are bound by SD when the SC wishes them to be bound, and not bound when the SC wishes otherwise.

Half full/half empty?............The SC determines the outcome of each case it hears. It is not bound by anything except their honor to interpret the Constitution as they understand it to be. Do you wonder how there can be 5-4 decisions if the Supremes were bound, actually "bound", by anything?

Its just words. Subtle if you appreciate what is going on. "RULES" ........ if you don't.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:49 am

Slavery ended by Constitutional Amendment. It could have, but did not, end by an "activist" SC overturning prior decisions. Again, notions of following SD can be advanced, but the bottom line is it is always the SC doing as it wishes. I do see a line of attack in what i just said and that is because the SC did follow SD in its history of interpretations upholding slavery....so its hard to see it was still a choice.

"The SC does whatever it wants to" reality is more easily seen in those instances that it overturns precedent. In those many and varied cases, SD has zero application. Its evident when the SC swings from conservative to liberal in its constituency, and then back again. Its why FDR threatened to pack the court because: they AREN'T BOUND......they make it up as they go.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The Supremes are NOT BOUND in any way by Stare Decisis. THEY MAKE Stare Decisis FOR THE LOWER COURTS TO FOLLOW.
Matthew Ellard wrote: They are bound to stare decisis you complete idiot as the Supreme Court has to overturn previous Supreme Court Decisions under the rules of stare decisis.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I am curious as to what you mean.
You made a specific claim that the "Supremes" make "Stare Decisis" for the lower courts to follow. This shows your complete lack of understanding of the doctrine of stare decisis.

As you claim to be an expert on stare decisis, you will tell me the three methods that will overturn application of a Supreme Court ruling to a lower court or overturn a Supreme Court Ruling as in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18295
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:07 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:55 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I am curious as to what you mean.
You made a specific claim that the "Supremes" make "Stare Decisis" for the lower courts to follow.
Thats basically correct with explanation only recessary at the edges. SD also applies to the SC....but they don't have to follow it. SD applies to the lower courts that are "supposed to" follow SD but "have to" only when ruled to do so by the SC. Its a bit of a quibble, but important for anyone who wants to better undertand the issue.

1. Stare Decisis: the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. //// I think the RULE as you cling to?

2. Stare Decisis: : a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice. //// You see the crack in the door?

What you refuse to deal with:
10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases | HowStuffWorks
https://money.howstuffworks.com › Money › Economics › Money & the Law

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a ...


Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:55 am
This shows your complete lack of understanding of the doctrine of stare decisis.
Q-10: How so? You keep saying that repetitively, but you never say/explain/give example as to what is misunderstood, or what the truth is, or what mechanism is used. why don't you give answering a direct question a try? Try giving a definition, a link?


Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:55 am
As you claim to be an expert on stare decisis,
No, I've never made such a claim, on SD or any other subject. Its not my outlook, style, or manner. The only authority I so often quote is: .........drum roll======>
► Show Spoiler
.........or refer to objective reality observable to all when saying
► Show Spoiler
. What I rely on and argue is the words used. Thats why your habit pattern of partial quotes, mischaracterization, diversion, failure to respond to direct questions, and ab homenum attacks is so noticed by me. Totally OBVIOUSLY a difference in style........I do wonder about actual personality, but that is an issue not reached by this forum. Ha, ha...I was about to make reference, but I'll fog it up a bit, "It's good to have psych professionals in the family."

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:55 am
.... you will tell me the three methods that will overturn application of a Supreme Court ruling to a lower court or overturn a Supreme Court Ruling as in total.
I don't know. My evidently ignorant position is that the Supremes simply issue a decision that in various degrees overturns, distinguishes, or adds requirements to prior decisions? I mention 3 variations just to parallel your construct.....I have no idea how responsive they are. Q-11: What are those three ways?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Thats basically correct with explanation only recessary at the edges.
No Bobbo. Your statement is simply not correct (the law doesn't have "edges" you can ignore.)
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: SD also applies to the SC....but they don't have to follow it
They certainly do. The Supreme Court of the United States has to interpret the legislative law given to them and make rulings and explanatory obiter dictums based on that legislation for lower courts to follow. They can't ignore it. If the Supreme Court did not state their obiters then lower courts would not be able to distinguish if rulings apply to their matters..

You also seem to be unaware that the lower courts make "appeals" to the Supreme Court based on their previous obiters. The Supreme court cannot simply ignore what their previous rulings and obiter dictums as the Supreme Court is bound under the doctrine of stare decisis. If, as you hilariously claimed, the Supreme Court could ignore legal precedents then all the previous Supreme Court rulings would have no weight and the entire legal system would collapse.

Give up Bobbo and stop trying to make this up as you go. :lol: :lol: