Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

sean.black
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:41 am

Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#1

Post by sean.black » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:14 am

My opinion is completely subjective but is also based on personal knowledge. Mr. Williams uses a process that appoints him to represent on another's behalf. He has never called himself a lawyer.
There is a big difference between practicing law and knowledge of the law. I have never met anyone that has ever said that he misrepresented their personal interest.
Even in the 18th century people used an attorney in fact and usually payed them a fee. In the attached under the checks not in the mail paragraph this is made evident.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... money.html
As for his court hearing beyond a reasonable doubt means that the state has to prove every aspect that he practice the law and or defrauded anyone despite having no complainants except their own personal hurt feelings. The fact that our own laws allow a person to grant representative power to anyone we want is enough reasonable doubt in itself.
As to the person referring to the Bible law. Where do you think are laws come from?
http://kirkcameron.com/u-s-constitution ... rinciples/
Educate yourself before you speak. I may know Anthony personally but that has not always been the case and instead of me judging based off what a piece of paper said I learned for myself that he is a honest and YAHWEH fearing man. He has only tried to help people and has been kicked repeatedly for doing so.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 4133
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#2

Post by DejaMoo » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:13 am

Hey, everybody! It's another sixth-grade dropout come to educate us!
sean.black wrote:As for his court hearing beyond a reasonable doubt means that the state has to prove every aspect that he practice the law and or defrauded anyone despite having no complainants except their own personal hurt feelings. The fact that our own laws allow a person to grant representative power to anyone we want is enough reasonable doubt in itself.
It's times like this I wish Google had an Idiot-to-English translator.
As to the person referring to the Bible law. Where do you think are laws come from?
Sean, you've got to educate yourself before you speak. Your first assignment is to learn the difference between "our" and "are". That should take you a few months; once you've got it down, come back for your second assignment.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34575
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#3

Post by realist » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:27 am

My opinion is completely subjective but is also based on personal knowledge. Mr. Williams uses a process that appoints him to represent on another's behalf. He has never called himself a lawyer.
Let's see if we can get started on the right foot.
My opinion is completely subjective complete bullshit but is also based on personal knowledgecomplete bullshit.

Mr. Williams uses a bullshit, useless process that appoints him to represent on another's behalf. He has never called himself a lawyer. But implies he is by his fake title PAG.


There, that's better. And much, much more accurate.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#4

Post by gatsby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:39 am

20160121-093606-min.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16066
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#5

Post by Suranis » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:12 am

sean.black wrote:My opinion is completely subjective but is also based on personal knowledge. Mr. Williams uses a process that appoints him to represent on another's behalf. He has never called himself a lawyer.
Yes, he used weasel words thinking that would protect him, He was "perfecting" law. He was a "private Attorney General". That was as much Bullshit as Bush and his "Enemy Combatants"

And I can spin in the air and call myself "Wonder man!" but that process I made up wont give me superpowers either.
There is a big difference between practicing law and knowledge of the law. I have never met anyone that has ever said that he misrepresented their personal interest.
Oh so you never met any of his clients. Good to know. And there is a big difference between Saying you have knowledge of the law and "perfecting" law?
Even in the 18th century people used an attorney in fact and usually payed them a fee. In the attached under the checks not in the mail paragraph this is made evident.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... money.html
This isn't the 1700s. Back then Lawyers were wandering specialists who only had Blackstones Commentaries as their only legal text. Idiots like Orly Taitz notwithstanding, we have computers these days, practices that have been established over the last 300 years, and accredited colleges of law where people can learn heir craft and precedents.

And even common law was based on Precedents and what others have gone before. Common law began when Kind Edward the Confessor started a system of roving Magistrates, who began to send records of their judgements to London for others to study and so that you could have consistent judgements.
As for his court hearing beyond a reasonable doubt means that the state has to prove every aspect that he practice the law and or defrauded anyone despite having no complainants except their own personal hurt feelings.


Well at least you admit that people actually complained about the results of his interventions in their cases. Though I think "constantly losing" and "making things a lot worse" might be justifiable cause for a little bit of a whinge on their part.
The fact that our own laws allow a person to grant representative power to anyone we want is enough reasonable doubt in itself.
Care to quote that particular law?
As to the person referring to the Bible law. Where do you think are laws come from?
http://kirkcameron.com/u-s-constitution ... rinciples/
Biblical law? Maybe you should read the books of Samuel and Kings and see what kind of law David and Wise King Solomon laid down.
Educate yourself before you speak.


Oh the Irony.
I may know Anthony personally but that has not always been the case and instead of me judging based off what a piece of paper said I learned for myself that he is a honest and YAHWEH fearing man.
One never does evil so fully and gaily, as when one does it through a "false principle of conscience." - Pascal
He has only tried to help people and has been kicked repeatedly for doing so.
If you sincerely and mistakenly believe that a pool is full of healing water, you are still responsible for the burns and the mockery of yourself when it turns out to be battery acid.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7716
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#6

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 am

Hey, Sean,

The first recorded laws are those of King Hammurabi of Sumer:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

On the ex-husband;s duty to his ex-wife and children:
137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
Women and their Rights:
151. If a woman who lived in a man's house made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefor: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man's house, had contracted a debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefor.

172. If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave her husband's house. If the woman desire to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father's house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.
Even Hebrew Law is predicated on Hammurabi:
195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]

197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.

198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.

199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]
oh, and the Code had quite stringent building laws.



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#7

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:12 am

Never rassle with a pig. And never try to teach a moran anything about the law.



7cordas
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:26 am

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#8

Post by 7cordas » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:22 am

The constitution was influenced by Christianity in so much as any crime influences law. The first four commandments:

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Vs

The 1st Amendment right off the bat flatly rejectsthe 1st five commandments as unconstitutional, along with the entire ritual decalogue (which is probably the original ten commandments and the common ten a later forgery).

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.

Coveting is not against the law anywhere in the US, but is the foundation of capitalism.

Adultery is not a crime and no law banning adultery would be considered constitutional.

That leaves killing, stealing, perjury. Written laws against these things have been around since at least the Code of Ur-Nammu, which predates even the Code of Hammurabi, which itself predates the Torrah.

Christianity offered nothing to any laws, least of which that wasn't already practiced as law in Rome, independently of old clay tablets in a future archaeology site.



User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#9

Post by gatsby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:28 am

Where is Mr. Black to defend himself? We await.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18081
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#10

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am

@7cordas:
please teach us about the influence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster on the Constitution! In which Ammenment have the Meat Balls gotten codified?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#11

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:32 am

Adultery is not a crime and no law banning adultery would be considered constitutional.
Only recently. There used to be such laws. And they still exist and are enforced in the UCMJ.



User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7716
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#12

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:36 am

@7cordas, thanks for the Ur-Nammu cite.



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#13

Post by Piffle » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:36 am

sean.black wrote:Even in the 18th century people used an attorney in fact and usually payed them a fee. In the attached under the checks not in the mail paragraph this is made evident.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... money.html
Yeah, well I'm a furniture doctor but I also do nose jobs and open heart surgery on the side. Since I'm a doctor, this is perfectly safe and legal don'tchaknow.

An agent performing on behalf of a principal pursuant to a power of attorney is called an attorney-in-fact. Anyone with a legal education knows this. You don't need such a silly obscure reference as the link provided to establish that non-lawyers have acted as attorneys-in-fact for hundreds of years. In fact, laws and customs governing powers of attorney date to at least medieval times when crusaders needed to appoint someone reliable (sometimes their wives) to manage their estates while they were gone.

But so what? Attorneys in fact have long been distinguished from attorneys at law.



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#14

Post by BillTheCat » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm

gatsby wrote:Where is Mr. Black to defend himself? We await.
I'm betting on him being a "One Hit Wonder", otherwise known as a "Drive-By". We'll see. :bored:

lol Kirk Cameron. And "Bible Law"?? Wowzers. :lol:


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#15

Post by gatsby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:14 pm

BillTheCat wrote:lol Kirk Cameron. And "Bible Law"?? Wowzers. :lol:
Cameron hasn't received this much attention since the bad reviews for his really bad Christmas movie.



User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5365
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#16

Post by listeme » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:27 pm

:cheer: :cheer1: :cheer: :cheer1: :happydance:


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#17

Post by magdalen77 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:37 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Adultery is not a crime and no law banning adultery would be considered constitutional.
Only recently. There used to be such laws. And they still exist and are enforced in the UCMJ.
Aren't there still laws about alienation of affection?



User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#18

Post by magdalen77 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:38 pm

Piffle wrote:
sean.black wrote:Even in the 18th century people used an attorney in fact and usually payed them a fee. In the attached under the checks not in the mail paragraph this is made evident.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... money.html
Yeah, well I'm a furniture doctor but I also do nose jobs and open heart surgery on the side. Since I'm a doctor, this is perfectly safe and legal don'tchaknow.

An agent performing on behalf of a principal pursuant to a power of attorney is called an attorney-in-fact. Anyone with a legal education knows this. You don't need such a silly obscure reference as the link provided to establish that non-lawyers have acted as attorneys-in-fact for hundreds of years. In fact, laws and customs governing powers of attorney date to at least medieval times when crusaders needed to appoint someone reliable (sometimes their wives) to manage their estates while they were gone.

But so what? Attorneys in fact have long been distinguished from attorneys at law.
I have power of attorney for my daddy. It does not make me an attorney at law. :lol:



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14806
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#19

Post by ZekeB » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:43 pm

magdalen77 wrote:Aren't there still laws about alienation of affection?
When I lived in Neebraskee 30 years ago there was a woman who brought such a suit against her husband's "friend." It didn't go anywhere back then and I bet it would have even less traction today.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27143
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#20

Post by Foggy » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:00 pm

CEL III tried it recently, but with a bit of a twist. :mrgreen:


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief.
And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large. :mrgreen:

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#21

Post by SueDB » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:17 pm

Seem to be a civil rather than a criminal thing.

I'm sure there are adultery and race mixing laws still on the books in America. They just aren't enforced.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

boots
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#22

Post by boots » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 pm

The typical sov-cit arrogance is displayed in the FEMA camp visitor's post above. He makes the common mistake of thinking that by calling his actions something other than "practicing law" and by him not claiming to be a "lawyer" that will somehow fool everyone - including the legal system - into concluding Williams is not practicing law without a license. Wrong.

The legal system just isn't as ridiculous as that - it may be ridiculous in some ways, but not that one, and not to that degree. If it were that easy, no one with an IQ over room temperature would ever be guilty of anything. It would all be a giant word game.

But even his misunderstandings are predicated on lies. He claims Williams never said he was a lawyer. Well, I've personally seen letterhead Williams sent to a court which claims his firm are "attorneys and counselors at law", and he claims it is a "law office" which enforces law.

He points to an article that says one could, in the 18th century, have an attorney in fact pick up a government check for veterans benefits. Nowhere does it say that powers of attorney entitled one to practice law. And, more telling, our visiting camp resident can cite to no caselaw in the intervening 200 years which says that either. Given the frequency with which this meritless argument is used, one would think there would be some support for it, but no, there isn't. In fact, the appellate decisions on Williams' cases cite to law saying just the opposite.

The state must of course prove every element of its case but how hard can that be? What I keep wondering is why he isn't being prosecuted for outright fraud or impersonating a govt agent. And I know we've had that debate before.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27143
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#23

Post by Foggy » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:45 pm

I think he randed away. :roll:


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief.
And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large. :mrgreen:

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#24

Post by gatsby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:46 pm

Foggy wrote:I think he randed away. :roll:
Can we get some snacks in here while we await his return?



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27143
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Sean Black tells us about Anthony Williams

#25

Post by Foggy » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:47 pm

I forgotted the snacks. :oops: :blackeye: :bag:


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief.
And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large. :mrgreen:

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”