Linda Belcher Speaks!

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4828
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#126

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:25 pm

Aaaaand DaveMuckey shows my mental image of Linda Tripp. :lol:Everytime I think of Linda Tripp I get the image of John Goodman playing her on SNL. He was funny with that.http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.co ... odman2.jpg



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#127

Post by raicha » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:31 pm

I'm sure raicha will have a more thorough reply, but in the interest of brevity I'd point out that this rule applies to members. Everyone else in the public eye is fair game. You joined in December of 2010, and the post is from July of 2010, so at the time of the post anyone here was free to use your real name.LIndainTX - persons who are or who have been engaged in the birther world and whose names appear in public court records may find themselves discussed on the Fogbow with their real names attached. Many, many posts may be generated discussing, debunking and mocking the theories of those persons.If one of those persons joins the Fogbow after many, many posts have been generated the mods will not scrub Fogbow of the previous comments. Such a policy would allow those we observe to control and censor our comments here simply by signing up as a member. Not gonna happen.However, once a person is a member they are entitled to the same consideration extended to other members. They have a right not to be insulted by other members. (In my opinion, that includes uncivil statements such as "we don't care about you here".)They also have a right to have their personal information protected. Again, in my opinion, the link between LindainTx and the litigant Linda Belcher was established by LindainTx herself when LindainTx self-identified as a litigant and began discussing the details of the litigation. Those who "out" themselves can't put the genie back into the bottle.But let's all be civil, eh?



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#128

Post by Foggy » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:21 pm



In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

LindainTX
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:07 am

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#129

Post by LindainTX » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:17 pm

Best of luck, Linda. Take care.Thanks Somerset and Suranis. Nicest thing I think anyone here has ever said to me. I just hope this surgery to remove parts of two cervical discs relieves some or all of the pain. They are torn and leaking, causing intense compression on the nerve roots creating permanent nerve damage in both arms as well as triggering chronic spasms in my neck and back that are extremely painful. The long term epidural injections in my neck, left ankle and lower spine are pretty brutal. The first few lasted several months, but these last few aren't helping much. Look, if any of you truly do have connections with Obama, we've been researching and found there is an 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Mulbury vs Madison, whereby every GOPer who refues to raise the debt limit without holding our economy hostage (trying to force cuts to the big 3) can be arrested as acts of sabotage and subversion of the Constitution. Please pass this along. It can also be used to arrest the GOP governor's implementing their right wing agenda's on states are acts that violate the Constitution. Jay called Chris Matthews private voicemail and others at MSNBC. We both call them all the time and give them stuff. It's kinda thrilling to give their producers stuff and a few hurs later our words and findings come back to us. We gave the Joe Walsh dirt to MSNBC and we never left home to find it. jay is on the phone right now calling everyone at MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. A lot of research can be found if one knows where to look for it, so to those who make fun of me for my Agoraphobia, consider this a peace offering. Here's what we found today: The term "Domestic Enemy" as used in the "Oath of Office" or "Oath of Enlistment" is not defined in the laws specifically. However, Constitutional scholars have stated that everyone in America opposed to or working against the Constitutionis by definition a domestic enemy of the Constitution: presidents, senators, congressmen, judges, bureaucrats, military, and police included. The Constitutional scholars are basing their definition on the quote from the US Supreme court in Marbury vs. Madison, from 1803, where the Court stated that “All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”The term is left undefined so as to give prosecutors sufficient leeway to fit numerous acts (Subversion, Sabotage, Terrorism, Espionage, etc...) into the definition.Ya'll have a good weekend now.



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#130

Post by raicha » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:25 pm

Look, if any of you truly do have connections with Obama, we've been researching and found there is an 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Mulbury vs Madison, whereby every GOPer who refues to raise the debt limit without holding our economy hostage (trying to force cuts to the big 3) can be arrested as acts of sabotage and subversion of the Constitution. Please pass this along. It can also be used to arrest the GOP governor's implementing their right wing agenda's on states are acts that violate the Constitution. Jay called Chris Matthews private voicemail and others at MSNBC. We both call them all the time and give them stuff. It's kinda thrilling to give their producers stuff and a few hurs later our words and findings come back to us. We gave the Joe Walsh dirt to MSNBC and we never left home to find it. jay is on the phone right now calling everyone at MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. A lot of research can be found if one knows where to look for it, so to those who make fun of me for my Agoraphobia, consider this a peace offering. Here's what we found today... Oh boy. [highlight]Marbury v. Madison[/highlight] is familiar to all lawyers on this board. It is the a landmark case in which the Supreme Court declares its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and the concept of judicial review.It does not stand for the proposition that one side in a political debate occurring in Congress may have the other side arrested.Really, if this is the system you want, I believe Taiwan is the place for you. IIRC, that's the place where legislators regularly engage in fistfights for the enjoyment of YouTube audiences everywhere.
Edit: And the phrase "all laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" is part of the Court putting everyone else on notice that laws that Court finds to be unconstitutional will be stricken. The laws will be null and void. This is what the Supreme Court has then gone on to do for over 200 years. They review state and federal laws that petitioners claim are unconstitutional. If the law is unconstitutional, the Court says so and the law is then null and void.Nothing about that allows your political enemies to be arrested.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#131

Post by realist » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:31 pm

Gee, thanks, Lindain. I doubt anyone here had ever heard of Marbury v Madison and had no idea. It's such an obscure case, after all. Mulbury v Madison even less so, I'd suspect. :-


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5326
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#132

Post by listeme » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:33 pm

so to those who make fun of me for my AgoraphobiaAs a sometimes sufferer of agoraphobia (luckily mild in my case), I would never make fun of it. I hope you get relief.


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

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#133

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:45 pm

We should immediately pass this along to Mr. Johnson. ;)


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

LindainTX
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:07 am

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#134

Post by LindainTX » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:48 pm

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee23 ... gns/up.gif This.Okay. Does that mean we can discuss published articles online which mention the real names of members here? Are you stating that if members here were/are part of any court proceedings, then it's okay to talk about them and use their real names? How about criminal proceedings? I just want to make sure I comply with your interpretation of rules since it was a lawyer member right here who advised me to make the use of my name an issue. Thank you for explaining how it works here.Ya'll have a great weekend.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#135

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:00 pm

Mayberry versus Moblyson? Never heard of it. And it allows the arrest of traitors in Congress? Wow. That's big news.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24530
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#136

Post by bob » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:02 pm




v.




Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#137

Post by raicha » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:02 pm

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee23 ... gns/up.gif This.Okay. Does that mean we can discuss published articles online which mention the real names of members here? Are you stating that if members here were/are part of any court proceedings, then it's okay to talk about them and use their real names? How about criminal proceedings? I just want to make sure I comply with your interpretation of rules since it was a lawyer member right here who advised me to make the use of my name an issue. Thank you for explaining how it works here.Ya'll have a great weekend.We are going to continue to discuss publicly available information, including and especially open court proceedings, and use the publicly available names of the persons identified in those articles and proceedings to distinguish who is being discussed.Amendment. First. We haz one.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#138

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:05 pm

"This" meant I agreed with every word of raicha's post immediately above it, especially the "let's be civil".


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#139

Post by Foggy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:07 pm

I am not EVEN gonna ask who the "we" is in "we've been researching" and found Boysenberry v. Whodison. [-( :-# =;


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#140

Post by Hektor » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:08 pm

Look, I despise the Tea Party for their ignorance and wishful thinking regarding the debt crisis. I even admit that I sometimes worry that the Madisonian system may provide too much power to people uninterested in engaging in the necessary compromise that is needed to govern. I am not going to throw out the social compact merely because people got elected that are doing things that I don't like. Calling for the arrest of lawmakers because I may view such legislation as unconstitutional or view their antics as detrimental to the republic breaks the most sacred rule of democracy: That we accept the will of the voters, no matter how vehemently we may disagree with their mandates. If I view legislation is unconstitutional I contribute to organizations that will challenge it in court. If I don't like what lawmakers are doing at any level of government, I work to replace them with those who I think will do a better job. If I fail to do this after an election, I vow to do my best to make my voice heard by those in power. The debt crisis is bad. I am very sure I fully do not understand how bad it will be if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd. Nevertheless, the great evils of history were perpetuated when people looked for strongmen to solve our problems for us by any means necessary. I don't know what the President's contingency plan is. I admit I'm scared because I truly believe that there are people stupid enough who may have enough power to cause a default they are so naive to want. I will not let that fear trample my love of the constitution and of democracy. America survived the Civil War, during which there was an election that decided the very course of the war. It can survive the Tea Party.



LindainTX
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:07 am

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#141

Post by LindainTX » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:13 pm

so to those who make fun of me for my AgoraphobiaAs a sometimes sufferer of agoraphobia (luckily mild in my case), I would never make fun of it. I hope you get relief.Thank you. I thought I was helping since this hostage-taking of our national security via threats to trigger the economic destruction of our country if Dems do not capitulate to economic blackmail. This is domestic economic terrorism by rwnj in the Tea Party, who have taken over the GOP.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#142

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:16 pm

A birther looking for a majick bullet.



LindainTX
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:07 am

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#143

Post by LindainTX » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:17 pm

Gee, thanks, Lindain. I doubt anyone here had ever heard of Marbury v Madison and had no idea. It's such an obscure case, after all. Mulbury v Madison even less so, I'd suspect. :-Is that what I typed? LOL it was a typo. The pain is worse the past four days and I have taken a lot of pain medication. It's hard to type at all from permanent nerve damage in both hands from my injuries. Me bad. Sorry.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#144

Post by realist » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:26 pm

Gee, thanks, Lindain. I doubt anyone here had ever heard of Marbury v Madison and had no idea. It's such an obscure case, after all. Mulbury v Madison even less so, I'd suspect. :-Is that what I typed? LOL it was a typo. The pain is worse the past four days and I have taken a lot of pain medication. It's hard to type at all from permanent nerve damage in both hands from my injuries. Me bad. Sorry.I "assumed" it was a typo as you later mentioned Marbury v Madison.





I was being sarcastic about no one here knowing about Marbury v Madison, as I would guess a good 98% at least know OF the case and I would suspect at least 50% can recite what Marbury was about (held) without looking it up... and it is not, as has been pointed out already, about anything even close to what you stated.





If an attorney was part of the "we" doing research and came up with your rendition of what Marbury holds (and if so that's a scary thought), you need to immediately find a different attorney to rely on for legal research.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#145

Post by BFB » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:32 pm

I am not EVEN gonna ask who the "we" is in "we've been researching" and found Boysenberry v. Whodison. [-( :-# =;

Not so much a fan of Boysenberry. I dig the blueberry and the raspberry. But my all-time fave is the grapeberry. Yum.





I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. Even tho my spidey senses are telling me it's gonna get nasty.



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#146

Post by raicha » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:36 pm

I was being sarcastic about no one here knowing about Marbury v Madison, as I would guess a good 98% at least know OF the case and I would suspect at least 50% can recite what Marbury was about (held) without looking it up... and it is not, as has been pointed out already, about anything even close to what you stated.





Since Orly got the boot here, the percentage of lawyers familiar with Marbury v. Madison should be 100%. It is one of the first things taught in law school and is one of the top three most important Supreme Court cases ever. Perhaps the most important, as it provides the Constitutional and philosophical authority for everything the Court has done since.





And yes, if there is an attorney out there who just discovered Marbury this week and is breathlessly passing on this 208 year old information to Chris Matthews, that attorney should immediately join Orly Taitz in her Konstitushional law practice. They will be well suited to each other as it seems that neither of them can ever be embarassed by the depth of their ignorance of the law.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#147

Post by realist » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:39 pm




I was being sarcastic about no one here knowing about Marbury v Madison, as I would guess a good 98% at least know OF the case and I would suspect at least 50% can recite what Marbury was about (held) without looking it up... and it is not, as has been pointed out already, about anything even close to what you stated.





Since Orly got the boot here, the percentage of lawyers familiar with Marbury v. Madison should be 100%. It is one of the first things taught in law school and is one of the top three most important Supreme Court cases ever. Perhaps the most important, as it provides the Constitutional and philosophical authority for everything the Court has done since.





And yes, if there is an attorney out there who just discovered Marbury this week and is breathlessly passing on this 208 year old information to Chris Matthews, that attorney should immediately join Orly Taitz in her Konstitushional law practice. They will be well suited to each other as it seems that neither of them can ever be embarassed by the depth of their ignorance of the law.I know all the attorneys here are intimately familiar with Marbury. I was positing those percentages as among all members here, attorneys or not.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#148

Post by realist » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:43 pm

This discussion of Marbury brought back memories from one of Orly's arguments (and I can't remember if it was Judge Carter or Land) where he asked her to distinguish Marbury.





The result was hilarious.





ahhhh fun times.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

LindainTX
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:07 am

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#149

Post by LindainTX » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:48 pm

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee23 ... gns/up.gif This.Okay. Does that mean we can discuss published articles online which mention the real names of members here? Are you stating that if members here were/are part of any court proceedings, then it's okay to talk about them and use their real names? How about criminal proceedings? I just want to make sure I comply with your interpretation of rules since it was a lawyer member right here who advised me to make the use of my name an issue. Thank you for explaining how it works here.Ya'll have a great weekend.We are going to continue to discuss publicly available information, including and especially open court proceedings, and use the publicly available names of the persons identified in those articles and proceedings to distinguish who is being discussed.Amendment. First. We haz one.Oh, I'm so glad you cleared that up. That's really too bad. I was chastized not to use plaintiff's real names even though they appear in the court records. So, as I understand your interpretation of the rules, it's okay to target me by using my real name and location, but not use anyone else's name and location? I wanted to be sure I clearly understood because other names who may or may not be members here might appear publicly in court records. Thank you for your time in explaining it to me.



BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Linda Belcher Speaks!

#150

Post by BFB » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:52 pm

Oh, I'm so glad you cleared that up. That's really too bad. I was chastized not to use plaintiff's real names even though they appear in the court records. So, as I understand your interpretation of the rules, it's okay to target me by using my real name and location, but not use anyone else's name and location? I wanted to be sure I clearly understood because other names who may or may not be members here might appear publicly in court records. Thank you for your time in explaining it to me.Gosh but I love indirect threats. It's just so .... intimidating. :lol:



Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”