George Rockwell's new lawyer?
There was surprisingly little fresh hate mail this week, particularly given that Breitbart and his minions are trying to manufacture outrage about how me and Keith Olbermann are pro-rape or something. That's why Keith responded to that idiocy with
this.
But it's quite clear -- Breitbart's best efforts still generate no response, compared to a single mention by Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Furthermore, the fears by some that Operation Hilarity would create a backlash from conservatives has also fallen flat. While it has received extensive mention in the wingnutosphere, the reaction has been a shrung, literally, "what goes around, comes around." Indeed, read the comments in this post by a hapless National Review columnist who tried to differentiate the Daily Kos effort to that of Rush Limbaugh -- their own readers laughed him out of the room.
Yeah, base conservatives don't give a shit about Operation Hilarity. They're too busy being depressed about their presidential field, and too un-hypocritical (surprisingly) to give a shit about what we do. And Breitbart apparently has no pull.
But lucky for us, there's a new and awesome conclusion to the George Rockwell saga!
All of it below the fold.
End of America?
It's interesting that we now have a president who
-openly wages war on religion
-wants to eliminate our nuclear weapons
-wants to eliminate 100,000 soldiers
-hates capitalism and loves socialism
-coordinates his activities with Black Panthers
-used to attend a radical, racist anti-white anti-American church
-hates Christians yet constantly appeases muslims
has plans to raise taxes more than anytime in American history
-hates Israel and supports "palestinian" terrorism
-brutally attacks conservatives but apologizes to our enemies and gives them money (Paksitan)
-has plans to eliminate our right to vote (this was already proposed by the criminal governor Perdue of North Carolina) thus making Obama president-for-life
That is called "stalinism" and Obama is clearly a radical communist. What is truly amazing is why you continue to support him. Do you remember how Hitler ended up? why do you think Obamas tyranny will end differently? Youre either crazy or stupid.
Stalin shrunk his military, apologized to his enemies, and was Muslim?
Global Warming
Banning me from the Kos is preventing the
people of the World from knowing the real truth about the cause of Global warming.
The real reason has not even been remotely
considered.
When will you wake up ? !!
If only Al Gore had the platform Edscan used to have at Daily Kos.
Joining the democrat party
Good day to you sir. I'm interested in joining the democrat party. I believe I fulfill most of the basic requirements: I am gay, atheist and I hate America. I also "work" for the govt. now, no need to worry that I am one of the useful govt employees like cops, doctors or soldiers. None of that shit here! Instead Im a classic democrat-style govt worker, my title is "Executive assistant to the assistant deputy director of goverment expansion agency". And since I'm applying to be a democrat you want to know about my cock. Well, its really really big, like a baseball bat. I think that in poor lighting and if I had thick lips and an iq of 60 you might mistake me for a black guy, thats how big myy cock is. Do I need to give the prseident blowjobs like regular democrats? Cause I'm willing to do that too if thats what it takes. OK! I'm on board! Death to America! Death to the rich! Death to christians! Death to white people! Gooooooooo DEMOCRATS!!!!!
In other words, Democrats have big cocks and Republicans have small ones?
Reinstate without reflection
Examine your conscience.
I ask nothing but to be allowed to be read by my friends.
I do not wish to prosletize anyone.
I am not a minster of any religion.
My righteousness, along with my civil rights, has been abused. You have called me a liar.
You have made yourselves out to be my judge
and jury.
To me that is intolerable.
Think !
edscan
Try Facebook.
And now back to George Rockwell. You can find some background on this guy here and here. By last week, George was trying to argue that the Supreme Court DID conduct a bench trial, and his evidence was by citing appellate cases from state courts in Pennsylvania and New York:
George Rockwell: So now the rules have changed? first it was the "supreme court", and when you got beaten it suddenly became the "u.s. supreme court". please tell me where in the article iii, section 2 is the "u.s. supreme court" mentioned? let me help you there: nowhere. the constitution doesn't mention the "u.s. supreme court", just the "supreme court". hey markos? do you know what they call a person who changes the rules in the middle of the game? a cheater. you simple can't handle losing to me, so you have to cheat to score a few points on some obscure technicalities. you are worst loser i have ever known.
Now back to the back-and-forth:
Me: Article III, Section 2 is of the U.S. Constitution.
New York and Pennsylvania have their own constitutions. And even then, the two cases you mentioned were appellate reviews, so you failed even under your own bizarro rules.
Then again, the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Canadian Supreme Court either, so maybe you're suing me in Canada?
Also, you might remember, from a few weeks ago, George's argument that lawyers had to identify themselves because some law said that cops did? Well, I never followed up on that law because the whole notion was absurd. But a reader did and let me know that, get this, the law was from New South Wales, Australia. So I had to throw that in his face.
Me: By the way, that police law that you keep citing?
It's from New South Wales.
Now I don't know, maybe you live in Australia. But last time I checked, a state law in Australia really has no bearing on America.
George Rockwell: ok, it's from australia. but it doesn't matter, since we are both "common law" countries. maybe they mentioned this in your fake law school? the laws are common so the principle applies here as well. nice work exposing yourself as a complete fool. and to address your previous point about jew york and pennsylvania having their own constitutions: are you really claiming that the u.s. constitution doesn't apply there? last time i checked, they were both a part of the united states, so the constitution applies there as well. oh, and markos, please look at this:
http://www.drugfree.org/...
there is justice scalia, personally (meaning a bench trial) making a decision in a case. so, that's three empty arguments crushed and you have truly exposed your ignorance about these matters. is avoiding having to admit defeat really more important than your pride and dignity? because you are humiliating yourself by making these moronic arguments that have about as much weight as your "law degree".
Me: That's not what "common law" means, dumbass. Common law is unwritten by a legislature. Since that law was written, it's statutory law. Sheesh.
Let's play this game. The UK has legalized gay marriage. The UK is a common law country. Therefore, gay marriage has been legalized in the U.S. You are so smart!
And that tobacco thing? From your link:
"After the Louisiana state court’s verdict in a class action lawsuit against tobacco companies, the companies requested a stay of the verdict. Scalia granted the stay in his role as a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, signaling a probable review of the case by the U.S. Supreme Court. He wrote in his opinion that it was “significantly possible that the judgment … will be reversed.”
So #1, it was appeal from a Louisiana state court, and Scalia stayed it as a judge on the 5TH CIRCUIT court of APPEALS.
You can't possibly be this stupid, can you?
George Rockwell: that is exactly what common law means, which you would know if you were a lawyer. and gay marriage being "legalized" doesn't make it a prescriptive law (look it up, in case your jew-operated law school didn't mentioned it). rather, it simply means that gay marriage is no longer illegal in the uk. in other words, the law takes no position on the possible homosexuality of the people getting married. and why is it homosexuality again? are you obsessed with this subject? i have again started receiving homosexual pornography from your jew friends, and your college republican lackey keeps sending me these weird homosexual stories that i find disturbing. you might me shocked to learn this, but i really don't care that much about homosexuality either way. yes, it is immoral and it is not exactly a lifestyle we should promote, but if someone chooses that path, then go ahead for all i care. you can't shock me with these images/stories, so drop it, ok?
Me: Sigh. You are tiresome. If you really think that a state law in Australia is somehow relevant to the US, then you are truly hopeless. There's nothing left to say.
As that tobacco case. It's an appeal. It even says it's an appeal. It's going through an appellate court. So I don't know why you pretend that it's anything but an appeal.
You've still found no evidence of a Supreme Court bench trial, and you never will. (And even your irrelevant state Supreme Court cases weren't bench trials. They were appeals.)
If you want to try and file your magical pretend lawsuit in a lower court, then have it appealed to a circuit court of appeals, and then the Supreme Court grant certiorari, then go for it! But that's the only way the Supreme Court will ever hear your magical pony unicorn lawsuit against me.
George Rockwell: i am tiresome? me? i have been debating you over a trivial issue for days, even though you understand neither law nor logic. you have used the same illogical arguments all this time, even though i have demonstrated all of them to be false. and i am tiresome? and speaking of false, i never claimed that the tobacco trial wasn't an appeal. however, it is a bench trial since justice scalia personally presided over the trial. therefore you have (once again) been proven wrong. would you please drop your act and just admit that you were wrong and i was right? please? or are you going to argue next that justice scalia wasn't actually presiding alone over the trial, but in fact the other justices were there but they were invisible? that would go nicely with one of your previous arguments about invisible restrictions in the constitution.
Me: It was an appeal. Period. There was no original jurisdiction, which is what you're attempting with your magical pony unicorn lawsuit against me. It was appellate jurisdiction, which requires the case be heard in a lower court first. It's all in the constitution, if you weren't so pigheaded about it.
But if you are so right, then you'll have no problem asking a real lawyer and having them confirm your brilliant legal analysis. But of course, you went that route already and got laughed out of the room.
You keep declaring yourself the victor, which is entertaining, I admit. But like any contest, we need an outside judge to declare the winner. Since you won't concede the plain language of the Constitution, and since you keep sending cases that have nothing to do with your argument, go ahead and find an outside arbitrer to tell you how wrong you are.
George Rockwell: all right, mr. bigmouth. i'll consult my lawyer, but only on the condition that you pay for all of my expenses if it turns out i'm right. don't worry, i won't try to jew you out of any money. i'll send you the actual bill. so, markos, are you man enough to put your money where your mouth is? or would rather admit that you were wrong and avoid the embarrassment?remember that if i'm right, you could be on the hook for quite a bit of money. how about it, "counselor"?
Me: Wait I'm confused -- if you have a lawyer, why aren't you using your lawyer to sue me?
George Rockwell: because lawyers cost money. my lawyer charges outrageous prices for a simple consultation, even though he isn't a jew. so i only use him when i have to. is the concept of lawyer's fee new to you? no wonder you're such a bad lawyer.
Me: Filing lawsuits requires lawyers. But on the bright side, you're going to make billions of your lawsuit, so you should be able to pay your lawyer no problem!
George Rockwell: so what's it going to be? are you willing to bet your own money that you're right? or do you want to back away? if you want out, all you have to say is "george, you were right and i was wrong" and we'll leave it at that. decision time, markos.
Me: So the question is:
"Can you file a lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court and get a bench trial presided by Antonin Scalia?"
Okay, I'm in.
George Rockwell: all right, markos, it's your money. i'll call my lawyer and arrange a meeting. you may not be smart, but at least you're not a coward.
Three days passed.
George Rockwell: ok, markos, how did you get to my lawyer? come on and confess. you somehow found out who my lawyer is and you or your jew allies bribed or threatened him, correct? this is really low, markos. i would have expected you to fight fair. i can't believe you would go to such lengths to win a simple dispute.
Me: Reality has a well-known Jewish bias.
This is all a practical joke, I'm now convinced.
I mean seriously, this can't all be real? Granted, if it was a hoax, it would be one hell of a hoax. This guy consistently sent anti-Jewish crap to me for years before I engaged! But every time I think I've nailed him as a hoaxter, he pulls me back from that ledge:
George Rockwell: a practical joke that cost me $165? i think you are the only one laughing right now. if this is the kind of "victory" that satisfies you, then you are not much of a man. is this how you handle your other business as well? by cheating? i'm so angry right now i could break something. thank god i'm heading for an assignment in texas, where i can do some honest work and forget your dishonest tricks and unbelievable attitude. i hope you don't have a conscience, because if you do, then you won't be able to sleep at night. do you teach your children to cheat on their exams? do you cheat on your taxes? must be great to not care about fair play or justice. now i believe that you really are a lawyer. i bet all the other lawyers look up to you? biggest cheater in the business, right? maybe you should be teaching other lawyers how to be more dishonest. just answer this one question honestly: do you believe in god? and if you do, do you believe that he watches our actions? something for you to think about. tomorrow, i'll be in texas, doing an honest day's work. i bet that's something they didn't talk about in law school. my friend is the truth, yours is deceit. and we are judged by the company we keep. have a nice weekend, cheater.
Me: You're angry that you were wrong? Get a second opinion. I'm sure another lawyer will finally validate your crackpot theories! And $165 is cheap. Get a good lawyer. Those cost $300/hour minimum.
I'll be happy to pay if it turns out you were right.
George Rockwell: you know what? i will get a second opinion. but i'll do it somewhere you can't prepare for. maybe texas, maybe somewhere else. and when it's clear that i was right, you will indeed see a hefty bill. until then i have nothing more to say to you, cheater.
Me: For the record, I have no idea where you live now. So I'm not sure how I could prepare for your current location, but I couldn't for Texas, since you've told me you'll be going to Texas.
Heck, I could be sounding the alarm in my Texas Jewish legal network right now, to thwart your plans!
George Rockwell: i live in pennsylvania, which you did know since i told one of your jew friends who keep emailing me with their juvenile insults. and if that's the way it's going to be, fine. i'll get my consultation somewhere other than texas. and you can be sure that i will make damn sure that whichever lawyer i consult is not a jew. i will find either a black lawyer or a muslim lawyer, just to be sure. but nice to know that you're considering yet more cheating, cheater. bye for now.
And that's it. I didn't respond. I figure he'll be gone a while racking up new lawyer bills trying to find that muslim or black lawyer to confirm his crackpot theories. Or
Lionel Hutz.