Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 09-22-2011 04:28 AM by zonsb.)

Facts:

When the state is a party to the case, the judge has a conflict of interest.
The state is an act of congress. A fiction.
The two elements of a valid cause of action are 1) the violation of a legal right and, 2) injury.

Marc has shown that cops, judges and other agents of the state can't refute those facts.

If Marc's evidence is wrong, anyone that can prove it to be wrong, that person could make a small fortune selling that information to state agents. It would mean state-agent witnesses would be able to effectively answer factually what the state is. And be able to prove that there's not a conflict of interest with the judge. That kind of information would easily be worth a couple hundred dollars to each prosecutor and judge.

A person who did that would be a hero and deserved of having a statue in their likeness erected by state agents of the judicial branch. That person would likely be appointed to a powerful position in government.

Check it out:
The sociopath doesn't have empathy. Though, a seasoned sociopath has learned how to play on the empathy of others to use it against them. Sometimes they step on their dick in the process. Like RealSkiiny did on the other thread by openly acknowledging he allows an alleged fraudster to ply his "trade" and let innocent people be injured when he -- RealSkinny -- could easily put an end to it. Clearly he displayed faux empathy.

RealSkinny · 09-30-2011, 03:14 AM

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: [*]When the state is a party to the case, the judge has a conflict of interest.

It's true that a judge is employed by the state, but I'm under the impression that more is required to establish a conflict of interest. Most judges are either elected or appointed for life, so there's no danger that judges will side with the state in each case for fear of losing their job. In fact, judges often make decisions that are extremely unpopular with state officials. Unless you can point to an incentive for judges to side with the state there's not much way of proving a conflict of interest.

Any party to an action will either be an employee of the state, or a member of the state, so if the only basis for claiming a judge has a conflict of interest is based on his role as a state official, then either party could claim a conflict of interest. In fact, if the jurisdiction elects their judges, if would be more likely the judge would have a stronger conflict with the state than with the defendant, because a ruling against the defendant will certainly result in a lost vote.

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: [*]The state is an act of congress. A fiction.

Any concept is a fiction the way you're using the term. Love, happiness, sorrow, law, calculus, physics, economics. Just because something is a concept doesn't mean it has no validity or ability to impact our lives.

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: [*]The two elements of a valid cause of action are 1) the violation of a legal right and, 2) injury.

Actually the violation of a legal right can itself be an injury. A common example would be trespassing, where the act of trespassing, a violation of a right in property, does not necessarily lead to actual damage to the property. However, violation of the right alone will provide a cause of action.

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: Marc has shown that cops, judges and other agents of the state can't refute those facts.

Sometimes. We've also seen examples where they clearly have. In particular, Marc's theories on standing, corpus delicti, and impeachment have been refuted by judges.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 09-30-2011 06:08 PM by zonsb.)

(09-30-2011 03:14 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: [*]When the state is a party to the case, the judge has a conflict of interest.
It's true that a judge is employed by the state, but I'm under the impression that more is required to establish a conflict of interest. Most judges are either elected or appointed for life, so there's no danger that judges will side with the state in each case for fear of losing their job. In fact, judges often make decisions that are extremely unpopular with state officials. Unless you can point to an incentive for judges to side with the state there's not much way of proving a conflict of interest.

Any party to an action will either be an employee of the state, or a member of the state, so if the only basis for claiming a judge has a conflict of interest is based on his role as a state official, then either party could claim a conflict of interest. In fact, if the jurisdiction elects their judges, if would be more likely the judge would have a stronger conflict with the state than with the defendant, because a ruling against the defendant will certainly result in a lost vote.

Your misinterpretation aside. The conflict of interest is essentially the same as having your spouse contest the divorce and your mother in law is the judge. Also, a judge is complicit in being paid a salary via compulsory taxes taken form the defendant. It's the same for prosecutors. Thus the justice system has been turned on it's head to thwart justice and serve up injustice.

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: [*]The state is an act of congress. A fiction.

Any concept is a fiction the way you're using the term. Love, happiness, sorrow, law, calculus, physics, economics. Just because something is a concept doesn't mean it has no validity or ability to impact our lives.

The bogus office of alleged higher authority is very much a fiction and very much impacts people's lives in negative ways. Thanks for furthering The Point.

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: [*]The two elements of a valid cause of action are 1) the violation of a legal right and, 2) injury.

Actually the violation of a legal right can itself be an injury. A common example would be trespassing, where the act of trespassing, a violation of a right in property, does not necessarily lead to actual damage to the property. However, violation of the right alone will provide a cause of action.

A man owns property that is sacred to him; that it be untouched by all others. The trespass injures him.

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: Marc has shown that cops, judges and other agents of the state can't refute those facts.

Sometimes. We've also seen examples where they clearly have. In particular, Marc's theories on standing, corpus delicti, and impeachment have been refuted by judges.

Saying no, denying a motion with valid cause to dismiss, denying a defendant the right to put on a defense, entering a guilty plea for a defendant based on impeached testimony; sure, judges do that. The judges have refuted nothing. The bogus concept of office of higher authority -- office of slave master -- refutes your appeal to higher authority.

RealSkinny · 10-01-2011, 05:12 PM

(09-30-2011 06:07 PM)zonsb Wrote: Your misinterpretation aside.

I didn't mean to misinterpret what you said. If you would simply identify my mistake I'll be happy to correct it.

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: The conflict of interest is essentially the same as having your spouse contest the divorce and your mother in law is the judge. Also, a judge is complicit in being paid a salary via compulsory taxes taken form the defendant. It's the same for prosecutors.

I think comparing the relationship between a judge and the state to the relationship between a mother and daughter is a huge stretch. An Employer/Employee relationship would be far more fitting, and as we can all probably agree, it's fairly common for employees to hate their bosses.

Your claim that compulsory taxes create a conflict also has its deficiencies. All those people judges put in jail cannot pay taxes any longer. On the contrary, they are now being supported by the state, which takes funds away from the state's coffers. Wouldn't this create an incentive for judge's to once again favor the defendants, and not the prosecutors?

Perhaps you would have something in a tax case, but again, sending the defendant to jail can only cost the judge his salary.

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: Any concept is a fiction the way you're using the term. Love, happiness, sorrow, law, calculus, physics, economics. Just because something is a concept doesn't mean it has no validity or ability to impact our lives.

The bogus office of alleged higher authority is very much a fiction and very much impacts people's lives in negative ways. Thanks for furthering The Point.

The point I was making is that simply claiming the state doesn't exist because it's a concept would be the equivalent of claiming physics doesn't exist because it's a concept. It's not a very convincing argument. I was hoping you could go into further detail.

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: A man owns property that is sacred to him; that it be untouched by all others. The trespass injures him.

It injures him in what way? Does it injure his psyche? Then why doesn't he sue for Emotional Distress? Does it injure his property? Then why doesn't he sue for vandalism?

The point I'm making is that when there is a trespass, the only injury is the violation of a right. It would be difficult to claim an injury in the owner other than the violation of his right to control the property.

(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote:
RealSkinny Wrote:Sometimes. We've also seen examples where they clearly have. In particular, Marc's theories on standing, corpus delicti, and impeachment have been refuted by judges.

Saying no, denying a motion with valid cause to dismiss, denying a defendant the right to put on a defense, entering a guilty plea for a defendant based on impeached testimony; sure, judges do that. The judges have refuted nothing. The bogus concept of office of higher authority -- office of slave master -- refutes your appeal to higher authority.

Here, the Judge goes over a few of Marc's arguments, including his standing argument and his argument that a witness may not testify if they can't identify the nature of the state. It doesn't stump the judge. The judge responds with a completely coherent and reasonable answer. He says standing is given by the statute that is the subject of the case. This is completely consistent with the government's PR, and not contradictory the way Marc claimed.
As for personal knowledge, the judge points out that the witness is sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues related to the case, even if he can't answer questions completely unrelated to the issues he will be asked to testify on. This makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter if a witness can't answer questions about the nature of the state if they are not being called to testify on those issues.

Here, the appeal court affirms, and goes into more detail about Marc's cause of action claims. They mention that despite the claim that the government had not presented a cause of action, all the elements in the cause of action were satisfied, and they go over each element required.

While it's not important to our discussion here, I think it's interesting to note that the court also states Marc made no attempt to disprove any of the elements in the cause of action. If Marc had successfully refuted even one element, the case would have been dismissed, but instead he made absolutely no attempt to refute any of them.

There was another thread where someone posted a court opinion where they lost a challenge to a ticket based on lack of corpus delicti, but it looks like the post may be lost since the forum mishaps. In that opinion, the judge argued out Marc's Corpus Delicti theory without blinking.

Let's be honest and fair here. Judges have refuted Marc's theories before, and they have done so with reasonable arguments that are consistent with the law as it has been defined by the state. I will make no argument that the State's definition of the law is a reasonable one, but that's not the issue here. Marc is merely claiming that the court is contradicting their own PR, but these judges' opinions are completely consistent with the State's PR.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2011 05:03 AM by zonsb.)

(10-01-2011 05:12 PM)RealSkinny Wrote: An Employer/Employee relationship would be far more fitting, and as we can all probably agree, it's fairly common for employees to hate their bosses.

Ninety-nine percent of employers aren't mafia bosses that give a free pass to the liability that's always attached to initiatory force. Government employees -- that is, men and women -- initiate force with impunity. It's a given in government that men and women employed by government/mafia boss while carrying out job related duties, are given a free pass on the attached liability to providing services at the barrel of a gun.

RealSkinny Wrote:Your claim that compulsory taxes create a conflict also has its deficiencies. All those people judges put in jail cannot pay taxes any longer. On the contrary, they are now being supported by the state, which takes funds away from the state's coffers. Wouldn't this create an incentive for judge's to once again favor the defendants, and not the prosecutors?

Wow, your rationalization are truly top notch ludicrous. The judge is disqualified by his "livelihood" of providing services at the barrel of a gun. He favors initiatory force for government/mafia employees only (not "outsiders") which gives them a free pass on the liability. A free pass on liability that no one can rightfully give except for the injured party. The injured party is the only person that has the right to give a free pass on the liability.

RealSkinny Wrote:Perhaps you would have something in a tax case, but again, sending the defendant to jail can only cost the judge his salary.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. Judges get raises for putting men and women in cages. Plus, there's bonds for court cases that are securitized and bundled into groups and traded/sold as mortgage backed securities. That's a topic beyond this discussion.

There's kick backs from the prison industrial complex. Two Pennsylvania judges convicted of sending teenage boys to jail on minor and frivolous charges in return for kick-back money.

Your lost taxation issue is off the table. Though I will say that you have the audacity to claim that by putting the man in a cage the lost revenue/taxes from the government/mafia not robbing him at the barrel of a gun is a just ideological argument for the basis of law for there not being a conflict of interest. That turns objective and honest law on its head. Ludicrous! Simply ludicrous. [Image: m0168.gif]

I'd consider the suggestion of providing services at the barrel of a gun to be ludicrous if I thought your weren't serious. In your case of suggesting the loss of taxes/booty is a sound argument that supports providing services at the barrel of a gun is [Image: crazy.gif]

.

I don't know whether I should [Image: chairfall.gif]

or

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote:
RealSkinny Wrote:Any concept is a fiction the way you're using the term. Love, happiness, sorrow, law, calculus, physics, economics. Just because something is a concept doesn't mean it has no validity or ability to impact our lives.

The bogus office of alleged higher authority is very much a fiction and very much impacts people's lives in negative ways. Thanks for furthering The Point.

The point I was making is that simply claiming the state doesn't exist because it's a concept would be the equivalent of claiming physics doesn't exist because it's a concept. It's not a very convincing argument. I was hoping you could go into further detail.

I fixed the above quotation sequence. Please be diligent in that regard. If you need to see the error look at your post I'm replying to.

I said the state was a fiction and you replied to it as a fiction. Now you inject the word "exist" in replacement of "fiction" as a slight of hand "switcheroo". You thought I'd miss that, didn't you. [Image: lecturehghd.gif]

The fiction lost due to providing services at the barrel of a gun. The mafia is a fiction that loses because it too provides services at the barel of a gun.

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote: A man owns property that is sacred to him; that it be untouched by all others. The trespass injures him.

It injures him in what way? Does it injure his psyche? Then why doesn't he sue for Emotional Distress? Does it injure his property? Then why doesn't he sue for vandalism?

The point I'm making is that when there is a trespass, the only injury is the violation of a right. It would be difficult to claim an injury in the owner other than the violation of his right to control the property.

Property is the extension of the man. People have sued for injury due to tresspass. Violation of a man's legal right that causes him emotional distress is that the emotional distress is injury.

RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-22-2011 03:46 AM)zonsb Wrote:
RealSkinny Wrote:Sometimes. We've also seen examples where they clearly have. In particular, Marc's theories on standing, corpus delicti, and impeachment have been refuted by judges.

Saying no, denying a motion with valid cause to dismiss, denying a defendant the right to put on a defense, entering a guilty plea for a defendant based on impeached testimony; sure, judges do that. The judges have refuted nothing. The bogus concept of office of higher authority -- office of slave master -- refutes your appeal to higher authority.

Here, the Judge goes over a few of Marc's arguments...

Here, the appeal court affirms,

First off, your two "Here" links don't work. Which is irrelevant anyhow. Because your circular argument that a judge providing services at the barrel of a gun is granted higher authority status (which is bogus in its own right) is a valid authority on what is and is not just/right/honest/objective law. It's still a ludicrous argument. Unless you're serious, then it's just Sad

.

RealSkinny Wrote:It doesn't matter if a witness can't answer questions about the nature of the state if they are not being called to testify on those issues.

The defendant calls on the witness to testify on the nature of the state because that is where the evidence lies to even begin to determine whether the defendant was in the state. What is the state? A fiction; an act of congress. Prove the defendant was within the fiction; within the act of congress.

RealSkinny Wrote:Let's be honest and fair here.

Boy, would that ever be a breath of fresh air. It would give me break form falling off my chair rolling on the floor laughing.

RealSkinny Wrote:Judges have refuted Marc's theories before, and they have done so with reasonable arguments that are consistent with the law as it has been defined by the state.

The mafia does the same according to the laws it wrote.

RealSkinny Wrote:I will make no argument that the State's definition of the law is a reasonable one, but that's not the issue here.

You've made ludicrous arguments in favor of government giving itself a free pass on the liability of initiatory force as an ideological basis for law.

RealSkinny Wrote:Marc is merely claiming that the court is contradicting their own PR, but these judges' opinions are completely consistent with the State's PR.

That's a non sequitur. The primary issue is the court contradicts the court's own PR. The issue of whether the judges opinions are consistent with the State's PR is a separate issue.

RealSkinny · 10-02-2011, 04:45 AM

(10-01-2011 07:12 PM)zonsb Wrote: The judge is disqualified by his "livelihood" of providing services at the barrel of a gun.

I thought you said he was disqualified because there was a conflict of interest. Or was it because the state doesn't exist? Or was it because there's no cause of action? Or was it because Corpus Delicti?

Honestly, we can't continue if you won't even bother to defend your own arguments. You clearly made three claims in the first post, but every time I shoot one down, instead of defending it you just fall back on a different excuse. If you want to continue a serious discussion on the matter, man up and start defending your own words. Maybe if you stopped rolling on the floor laughing you could come up with something to say that wouldn't embarrass yourself.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2011 06:58 AM by zonsb.)

(10-02-2011 04:45 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(10-01-2011 07:12 PM)zonsb Wrote: The judge is disqualified by his "livelihood" of providing services at the barrel of a gun.

I thought you said he was disqualified because there was a conflict of interest.

Yes and robbing people at he barrel of a gun to fund the state the state uses that money to pay the judge. The state prosecutor and the judge are on the same "team". Thus there is a conflict of interest. Like having your mother in law be the judge on the same team as your spouse in a contested divorce.

RealSkinny Wrote:Or was it because the state doesn't exist?

That was your slight-of-hand wherein you omitted "fiction" and replaced it with "exist. Which I brought to the readers' attention in my previous post.

I've lost count of the times you've used one rationalization after another in moving the goalpost.

RealSkinny Wrote:Honestly, we can't continue if you won't even bother to defend your own arguments. You clearly made three claims in the first post, but every time I shoot one down, instead of defending it you just fall back on a different excuse. If you want to continue a serious discussion on the matter, man up and start defending your own words. Maybe if you stopped rolling on the floor laughing you could come up with something to say that wouldn't embarrass yourself.

You've stacked up one ludicrous rationalization after another, followed by an even more absurd rationalization followed by audacious rationalization and etc.

Go ahead and puff your chest and boast and declare yourself the winner. You're still not getting any money, power and glory as depicted at the top of this thread. Seems obvious your ego is humongous compared to what the legal system thinks your commentary is worth. I'm more than happy to let the issue rest on what has been written.

RealSkinny · 10-05-2011, 04:25 AM

(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: Yes and robbing people at he barrel of a gun to fund the state the state uses that money to pay the judge.

Now you're actually getting somewhere. It's true, a judge may convict on certain infractions, which in turn creates money for the state. However, I would counter that by pointing out two facts:
1. Most of the revenue from infractions is not made in the courtroom. The majority of tickets received are never actually contested. People pay them without setting foot in the courtroom. A judge is only hearing a small fraction of those tickets, and the amounts are negligible. Convicting a couple people per day of a parking violation at 35 bucks a pop isn't exactly high stakes. Certainly not the kind you would think necessary to create incentive.
2. Judges are appointed for life (or elected) with a fixed salary. They are not paid based on convictions. A judge can dismiss every single case that comes his way and it will have absolutely zero effect on his job security and his wallet. When a judge's pay and job security are in no way affected by his decision to dismiss or convict, it's hard to make an argument that there's a conflict of interest.

(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: The state prosecutor and the judge are on the same "team".

By that logic, so is the public defender. Does this mean the prosecutor can claim conflict of interest because the judge and the public defender are on the same team?

And I'll restate this one more time, I think it is far more likely that a Judge would have greater incentive to side with the defendant than the prosecutor in a jurisdiction where the judge is elected. Remember, every conviction is a lost vote. Of all the potential conflicts that have been raised, the only one that appears to actually have a negative affect on a judge is by convicting a defendant.

(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: That was your slight-of-hand wherein you omitted "fiction" and replaced it with "exist.

Sleight of hand? I just thought you were using the terms interchangeably. Please explain the difference between a state that is a fiction and a state that does not exist.

(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: Which I brought to the readers' attention in my previous post.

I hate to burst your ego, but I think it's just you and me.

(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: I've lost count of the times you've used one rationalization after another in moving the goalpost.

I thought the goal posts were clearly established in your first post: Conflict of Interest, Injury requirements, and existence (or fiction) of the state.

It's clear that someone has been making adjustments to the goal posts, but I can't say I've had any hand in it. I've been sticking with your original three issues the whole time.

(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: I'm more than happy to let the issue rest on what has been written.

I'm sure you would love to back out now. Perhaps you should have raised the white flag instead, although I think your choice of yellow is also very fitting.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-05-2011 07:31 PM by zonsb.)

(10-05-2011 04:25 AM)RealSkinny Wrote: I thought the goal posts were clearly established in your first post: Conflict of Interest, Injury requirements, and existence (or fiction) of the state.

Yes I did set the goal post at the top of the thread. And it remains exactly where I placed it then. The only thing you've proved is your ability to rationalize to absurd and ludicrous ends.

Go ahead and puff your chest and boast and declare yourself the winner. You're still not getting any money, power and glory as depicted at the top of this thread. Seems obvious your ego is humongous compared to what the legal system thinks your commentary is worth.

WorBlux · 10-05-2011, 05:19 PM

(10-05-2011 04:25 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(10-02-2011 06:34 AM)zonsb Wrote: Yes and robbing people at he barrel of a gun to fund the state the state uses that money to pay the judge.

2. Judges are appointed for life (or elected) with a fixed salary. They are not paid based on convictions. A judge can dismiss every single case that comes his way and it will have absolutely zero effect on his job security and his wallet. When a judge's pay and job security are in no way affected by his decision to dismiss or convict, it's hard to make an argument that there's a conflict of interest.

Not really, many local level judges are elected, and second even for lifetime appointments you'll never be considered for promotion if you did something disruptive to government power like dismissing every single drug complaint that was presented to you. Thirdly there are methods of impeachments. Fourthly a pawn of a system is rarely going to do something that would endanger the system as a whole; if a judge were to recognize that taxation is theft it wouldn't be long before his paycheck could not be drawn due to insufficient funds.

NonEntity · 10-05-2011, 07:50 PM

Interestingly Marc J. Victor, partners with Ernie Hancock in The Freedom Summit in Phoenix, was once a judge. He proclaimed that he would not accept any drug cases on his bench. A day or two later, if that, he was no longer a judge. He has told the story a couple of times and I don't remember the specifics. Perhaps it's on file someplace. I'm not sure of the specifics, but he was most certainly cast out by the good ole boys in the system with no recourse.

- NonE

RealSkinny · (This post was last modified: 10-13-2011 02:55 AM by RealSkinny.)

(10-05-2011 01:56 PM)zonsb Wrote: Yes I did set the goal post at the top of the thread. And it remains exactly where I placed it then. The only thing you've proved is your ability to rationalize to absurd and ludicrous ends.

You've made several claims that the rationalization I've used is absurd, but you've yet to point out where the flaw in logic exists.

You stated there was a conflict of interest that would cause the judge to side with the prosecutor. I pointed out that a judge's wallet will in no way be benefited by siding with the prosecution, but it may actually be negatively impacted, which doesn't support a conflict of interest theory. At least, not for the prosecution's side.

You have not refuted the facts I have put forth in any way except to call them absurd without reason. I wouldn't so quickly declare myself the winner of anything, because I believe there are excellent arguments to be made on both sides, but unfortunately with just the two of us arguing the issue, it seems logical arguments are only capable of being presented on one side.

(10-05-2011 07:50 PM)NonEntity Wrote: Interestingly Marc J. Victor, partners with Ernie Hancock in The Freedom Summit in Phoenix, was once a judge. He proclaimed that he would not accept any drug cases on his bench. A day or two later, if that, he was no longer a judge. He has told the story a couple of times and I don't remember the specifics. Perhaps it's on file someplace. I'm not sure of the specifics, but he was most certainly cast out by the good ole boys in the system with no recourse.

- NonE

Where a conflict of interest can be proven, a judge will be removed, no matter which side he favors. Remember those judges that were receiving kick backs for keeping juvi detention centers full?

The point I'm making is merely that there's no reason to assume a judge is inherently biased based on his job position. A judge has just as much reason, if not more, to be biased for the defense as he does to be biased for the prosecution.

I have actually heard that judges tend to favor the side they were on when they were lawyers. A judge who came from the District Attorney's office will be more prejudiced against defense attorneys, while a judge who came from the public defender's office will be more prejudiced against prosecutors. I haven't personally met enough judges to confirm this, but it sounds reasonably likely. A player who gets promoted to referee is still going to give the good calls to his old team.

(10-05-2011 05:19 PM)WorBlux Wrote: Not really, many local level judges are elected, and second even for lifetime appointments you'll never be considered for promotion if you did something disruptive to government power like dismissing every single drug complaint that was presented to you. Thirdly there are methods of impeachments. Fourthly a pawn of a system is rarely going to do something that would endanger the system as a whole; if a judge were to recognize that taxation is theft it wouldn't be long before his paycheck could not be drawn due to insufficient funds.

It's true, conflicts of interest aside, judges are still required to follow the letter of the law. This is what their job requires. A person who doesn't perform their job cannot be expected to keep it.

However, I think it's going a bit far to say that a judge who is not displaying a conflict of interest in favor of the government is disruptive to government. The situations you and NonE have presented show a complete unwillingness to apply the law at all. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who was impeached or denied promotions for rendering a decision that was unfavorable to the state but completely within accordance with the law. I do remember reading about how Roosevelt threatened to impeach several Supreme Court Justices and threatened to impose term limits on the Supreme Court because they kept ruling that many of his policies were unconstitutional, but nothing ever came of it. The rulings were sound, so there was nothing to impeach the justices over.

I think another problem that has yet to be mentioned is the fact that the government is not always one unified team. There are different bodies and tiers of government that are often at odds with each other. Various government agencies often have unique goals, and they may even find themselves as opposing parties in a single court case.

Many parking tickets are actually given out by city governments. If those ticket challenges are going before a state appointed judge, he probably doesn't care who he pisses off if he dismisses too many cases. Even though the city is a government body, it really has no authority over a state appointed judge. In those instances, the idea that the judge is going to side with the government for fear of retribution becomes even less likely. The same is probably true in situations where a federal judge must resolve issues between states or where a state judge must decide issues involving federal agencies. Just because there's a government entity on one side of the table doesn't necessarily mean the judge is on their side or under their authority.

NonEntity · (This post was last modified: 10-13-2011 09:46 AM by NonEntity.)

(10-13-2011 01:53 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(10-05-2011 01:56 PM)zonsb Wrote: Yes I did set the goal post at the top of the thread. And it remains exactly where I placed it then. The only thing you've proved is your ability to rationalize to absurd and ludicrous ends.

You've made several claims that the rationalization I've used is absurd, but you've yet to point out where the flaw in logic exists.

That's his style... exactly the same response - repeatedly - that zonsb made when I stated that a thief was honest (I think that was in relation to a politician, but don't remember for sure). All he did was make fun of me rather than refute the logic that demanding something forthrightly is honest whereas using manipulation and deceit is not. This response and the slurs he has engaged in since then are proof to me that he himself is dishonest. I think the more proper term is Argumentum ad hominem. He has proven himself to be unworthy of serious conversation.

(10-13-2011 01:53 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:

(10-05-2011 07:50 PM)NonEntity Wrote: Interestingly Marc J. Victor, partners with Ernie Hancock in The Freedom Summit in Phoenix, was once a judge. He proclaimed that he would not accept any drug cases on his bench. A day or two later, if that, he was no longer a judge. He has told the story a couple of times and I don't remember the specifics. Perhaps it's on file someplace. I'm not sure of the specifics, but he was most certainly cast out by the good ole boys in the system with no recourse.

- NonE

Where a conflict of interest can be proven, a judge will be removed, no matter which side he favors. Remember those judges that were receiving kick backs for keeping juvi detention centers full?

Just to clarify my intended point, Marc Victor was recusing (sp?) himself from cases where he had a personal bias. He refused to take part in something on which he had a personal position. And for this he was canned. This seems to be in contradiction to the way you appear to have painted it above. It would seem to me that Marc's actions would be ones which would make him more suitable as a justice, not less.

- NonE

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-17-2011 06:58 AM by zonsb.)

(10-13-2011 09:30 AM)NonEntity Wrote: That's his style... exactly the same response - repeatedly - that zonsb made when I stated that a thief was honest (I think that was in relation to a politician, but don't remember for sure). All he did was make fun of me rather than refute the logic that demanding something forthrightly is honest whereas using manipulation and deceit is not. This response and the slurs he has engaged in since then are proof to me that he himself is dishonest.

Fortunate for me I bookmarked several posts from the old board. I'm posting the discussion NonEntity and I had, the one he mentioned above. Speaking of forthright compared to manipulative and deceit, I find that especially ironic in light of the discussion re-posted below. Including links to each original post.

I will follow that re-posting with a recent "discussion" NonEntity and I had a few days ago. While it's much shorter than the older discussion, it's similarly revealing. Especially the crescendo. Which in and of itself, though revealing, loses it's impact if the reader hasn't digested the "orchestral trail" that it triumphs.

NonEntity has empty words to offer. I have empirical evidence posted below. I'll offer this one quote from the below re-posts; you can read the remainder and make of it what you will. "A common criminal is honest whereas a statist thug is not."--NonEntity

Common criminals are honest!?

See who makes fun of who and who does and doesn't put forth non-contradictory logic in their arguments.

Older discussion. Here is the link to NonEntity's post: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....e=threaded

(03-05-2011 12:01 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:I forgot to mention that when you tell a person: No thanks, I chose not to associate with you, an honest person will respect that and leave you alone. Opps, now I remember, I did say that earlier. But I think it was worth saying a second time anyhow. :biggrinblue:

When government agents act against a person without that person's consent by using initiatory force or threat of force to obligate the person to meet their demands, at minimum the government agent has put his/her victim into involuntary servitude.

You're confused. Honesty has nothing to do with violence. A common criminal is honest whereas a statist thug is not. The common criminal will honestly walk up to you with his gun out and demand your money with no lame excuses about the betterment of society or other such crap. We could do with more honesty, of course, but it is not the magic pill you seem to think it is.

- NonE

Here's the link to my response: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....e=threaded

(03-05-2011 01:28 PM)zonsb Wrote:
NonEntity Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:I forgot to mention that when you tell a person: No thanks, I chose not to associate with you, an honest person will respect that and leave you alone. Opps, now I remember, I did say that earlier. But I think it was worth saying a second time anyhow. :biggrinblue:

When government agents act against a person without that person's consent by using initiatory force or threat of force to obligate the person to meet their demands, at minimum the government agent has put his/her victim into involuntary servitude.

You're confused. Honesty has nothing to do with violence. A common criminal is honest whereas a statist thug is not. The common criminal will honestly walk up to you with his gun out and demand your money with no lame excuses about the betterment of society or other such crap. We could do with more honesty, of course, but it is not the magic pill you seem to think it is.

- NonE

Actually, it appears you're the one that's confused. You brought up the word "violence" and I will assume you equate violence to violation of the NAP, which is the use of initiatory force, threat of force or fraud. Actually, violence can he honestly applied when used in self defense. But that's a separate issue form what is being discussed here.

If you look at the post directly above the one you responded to you'll find this: "I own myself. The first premise of freedom of association is the freedom to not associate -- having the freedom to not consent. Freedom is being able to say: No thank you, I do not consent, I chose not to associate with you. An honest person will respect that and leave you alone." Ironically, that quote originated in the same post as the one highlighted in red above.

If you look up the page a ways you'll find that I wrote this: "The real difference is that men and women in government are far better at disguising the gun than bank robbers. Plus, the bank robber doesn't contend that his theft is right and proper and expect accolades in return as politicians and bureaucrats do."

A person that puts forth an offer to associate and is not a thief -- meaning they aren't a common thief nor a thieving government agent -- if the person they make the offer to says, I don't consent to associate with you, the honest person making the offer will respect that and leave the person alone.

The first premise of the thief that openly admits that he is going to steal a person's money, his act of thievery is dishonest. That he doesn't deceive the person as to what his true intent is, does not equate to him being honest. He is less despicable than the government agent that portends that he has legitimate right to take, without consent, a person's money. The government agent is more dishonest than the common thief. The common thief is less dishonest than the government agent.

It's not a matter of which is more or less honest. It is a matter of which is more or less dishonest. Neither of the acts are honest. Both acts are dishonest.

It seems you are mistaken in your assertion that, "honesty... is not the magic pill you seem to think it is." You're mistaken that I think honesty is some sort of magic pill.

I see honesty for what it is and see dishonesty for what it is. Nothing magical about it.
- -

Here's the link to NonEntity's response: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....e=threaded

(03-05-2011 03:14 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:If you look at the post directly above the one you responded to you'll find this: "I own myself. The first premise of freedom of association is the freedom to not associate -- having the freedom to not consent. Freedom is being able to say: No thank you, I do not consent, I chose not to associate with you. An honest person will respect that and leave you alone." Ironically, that quote originated in the same post as the one highlighted in red above.

If you look up the page a ways you'll find that I wrote this: "The real difference is that men and women in government are far better at disguising the gun than bank robbers. Plus, the bank robber doesn't contend that his theft is right and proper and expect accolades in return as politicians and bureaucrats do."

A person that puts forth an offer to associate and is not a thief -- meaning they aren't a common thief nor a thieving government agent -- if the person they make the offer to says, I don't consent to associate with you, the honest person making the offer will respect that and leave the person alone.

The first premise of the thief that openly admits that he is going to steal a person's money, his act of thievery is dishonest.
(emphasis mine)

I think you are confusing "honesty" with empathy and ethics. It has nothing to do with those concepts.

"Foolish" is another issue, and that is what I was for engaging.

- NonE

I had been nothing but helpful in explaining why both kinds of thieves are dishonest. Further explaining that it's not a measure of honesty that differentiates the two. Rather, it's a measure of dishonesty that differentiates the two.

Notice that NonEntity extricates himself from the discussion by asserting that he was foolish for engaging me in discussion. As if to say I wasn't worthy of discussion because I didn't comprehend how "A common criminal is honest". He still hadn't acknowledged that the common street-criminal type thief is dishonest.

NonEntity's above post was his last to the discussion.

Here's the the linkto my response: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....e=threaded

(03-05-2011 08:39 PM)zonsb Wrote:
NonEntity Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:If you look at the post directly above the one you responded to you'll find this: "I own myself. The first premise of freedom of association is the freedom to not associate -- having the freedom to not consent. Freedom is being able to say: No thank you, I do not consent, I chose not to associate with you. An honest person will respect that and leave you alone." Ironically, that quote originated in the same post as the one highlighted in red above.

If you look up the page a ways you'll find that I wrote this: "The real difference is that men and women in government are far better at disguising the gun than bank robbers. Plus, the bank robber doesn't contend that his theft is right and proper and expect accolades in return as politicians and bureaucrats do."

A person that puts forth an offer to associate and is not a thief -- meaning they aren't a common thief nor a thieving government agent -- if the person they make the offer to says, I don't consent to associate with you, the honest person making the offer will respect that and leave the person alone.

The first premise of the thief that openly admits that he is going to steal a person's money, his act of thievery is dishonest.
(emphasis mine)

I think you are confusing "honesty" with empathy and ethics. It has nothing to do with those concepts.

"Foolish" is another issue, and that is what I was for engaging.

- NonE

Theft is a dishonest act regardless of whether it is a common mugger type thief that openly steals people's wallets and acknowledges outright that his act is thievery, and when it's a government agent that steals money out of wallets and claims his taking people's money without their consent is legitimate taking of their money -- his act of thievery is also a dishonest act. They are both thieves and both their acts of thievery are dishonest. One is more dishonest than the other. Neither act is honest.

You wrote:
Quote:A common criminal is honest whereas a statist thug is not. The common criminal will honestly walk up to you with his gun out and demand your money...

Huh?!?!?!... There's nothing honest about that. Theft is dishonest.

It's not a measurement of honesty -- not a measure of which thief is more honest than the other. Rather, it's a measure of dishonesty -- a measure of which thief is more dishonest than the other. They both initiated force. Initiation of force is dishonest.

It used to be just the politician, bureaucrat and jackboot thug that claimed their acts were honest -- without admitting to being a thief in the first place despite the fact that they use initiatory force and threat of force to take people's money. Now we have NonE claiming that common thieves are honest thieves.

Someone please speak up. I just can't fathom how a common thief/criminal and a government agent/criminal/thief are not both dishonest. And I certainly can't see how either one of their acts of thievery are honest. Am I missing something here? Is this Candid Camera? Have I just walked onto the TV studio set of the Twilight Zone?

Here is a re-post of the recent "discussion" NonEntity and I had. It's as revealing as the above. It begins with my post, which NonEntity would thereafter respond to.

Here's the link: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....0#pid19060

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote: I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

The following quote is where the above was derived:

Quote:Independent of opinion there is the instinct of self preservation seen throughout nature. Self preservation isn't a product of reason. A product of reason is the acknowledgement of self preservation beyond oneself.

Moral and immoral are a concept or construct created by the conscious mind. Which I think originated as a means to control the minds and thus acts of other people to help those wielding the moral construct to get other humans to assist in preserving their lives -- preserve the lives of the ruling class.

Man has the capacity to increasingly understand nature and thus control nature to increasingly ensure the preservation of self, and with his combined capacity to create and produce more than he consumes man reasons that to voluntarily assist in the preservation of humans other than oneself is a benefit to oneself.

Preservation of human life is for the sake of oneself, not the species. Thus, achieving greater understanding of nature, man will cure human death to preserve the individual. Preserving the individual has a secondary benefit of preserving the species.

The ruling class doesn't want the suppressed class to know this. For the ruling class' public relations scheme is that preservation of the species has priority above the preservation of self. The ruling class construct defeats the nature of self preservation in favor of an alleged greater good. Which in and of itself is their intent to preserve the status quo wherein the suppressed class is to serve the needs of the ruling class.

The ruling class has no lofty or higher goal to preserve the species. It's just a ruse to get the suppressed class -- that they have suppressed via their public relations scheme in which they define what acts are good/moral and what acts are bad/immoral -- to server their need for self preservation.

They also don't want the suppressed class to know that they -- the ruling class -- couldn't survive without the creativity and productivity of the suppressed class. For the alleged greater good of the group they define what is good/immoral and what is bad/immoral. When in reality whatever any individual determines is good or bad for oneself is for the preservation of self.

Resorting to rule of the jungle is to abandon reason and puts oneself at high risk of defeating self-preservation. That is why the vast majority of the suppressed class honor reason and voluntary association over might-makes right and coercion. It is based on self preservation, not the ruling class good-bad/moral-immoral construct.

Whatever a human organism determines is of value to self is a benefit to self. Whatever a human organism determines is not of value to self is not a benefit to self. If an individual determines that another person threatening their life is bad for themselves they will defend their life. In the anticivilization that may include complying with the demands of a ruling-class minion (a cop for example) because the individual knows that the cop will not accept a decline of his "offer" and let the person go about their way unmolested.

The nonaggression principle comports with natural law. While reading I came upon the term/phrase, "the social contract". The term was new to me so I had to pause and put meaning to it. It was immediately clear to me that "the social contract" is the non aggression principle. Sometime latter I learned the term, "social contract", as it is typically used had little if anything to do with the nonaggression principle.

All acts that violate the non aggression principle, for the person committing said act risks diminishment and or defeat of self-preservation. All violations of the nonaggression principle have a liability attached. The "social contract" as it's typically espoused gives it primacy over the nonaggression principle.

None the less, the nonaggression principle is the social contract. They're one and the same. The new world order is order out of anarchy honoring the social contract for self preservation. In short, a voluntary society/civilization. A moral-immoral/good-bad concept/construct is superfluous.

Live and let Live.

Conversely, the moral-immoral concept/construct is only important to the ruling class homogenization of Nation States so the ruling class can continue to rule over the suppressed class. Nonaggression principle and preservation of the individual be damned.

The ruling class with its minions argue the primacy of the good-bad/moral-immoral construct for the alleged greater good at the expense of the nonaggression principle of self preservation of the individual.

It's not surprising that after a hundred generations people still argue or debate over the superfluous since they have been encouraged to do so by the ruling class and their minions.

Here's the link to NonEntity's first comment to my post:http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....5#pid19065

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote: I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote: I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote: See above comment.

Here's the link to my response to NonEntity's post:http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread.php?tid=2752&pid=19067#pid19067

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)zonsb Wrote:
(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote: I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote: See above comment.

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)zonsb Wrote: What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

Here's the link to NonEntity's response to my post:http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....9#pid19069

(10-06-2011 04:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)zonsb Wrote: What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>

- NonE

Here is the link to my response to NonEntity's post:http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....2#pid19072

(10-06-2011 04:55 PM)zonsb Wrote:
(10-06-2011 04:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)zonsb Wrote: What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>

Yes seriously!!! Yes ambiguity!!! Who is Jeffry Dahmer? Apparently you're incapable of making a coherent comment or argument. I asked two inquisitive question and you demonstrate no empathy for my plight -- just ridicule. Is that what empathy is for you -- a club?

Here's the link to NonEntity's response to my post:http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....3#pid19073

(10-06-2011 05:01 PM)NonEntity Wrote: Sorry. Here, let me help CLICK HERE

- NonE

That was NonEntity's last response to me and his last response to the thread.

Here's a link to my response to NonEntity's post:http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....5#pid19075

(10-06-2011 06:22 PM)zonsb Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

NonEntity Wrote:Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>

zonsb Wrote:Yes seriously!!! Yes ambiguity!!! Who is Jeffry Dahmer? Apparently you're incapable of making a coherent comment or argument. I asked two inquisitive question and you demonstrate no empathy for my plight -- just ridicule. Is that what empathy is for you -- a club?

NonEntity Wrote:Sorry. Here, let me help CLICK HERE

Is that to say it's my fault for your lack of clarity in your writing and my fault for your ambiguity in your writing. You've been anything but helpful so far, why should I believe you now?

You still haven't made a coherent argument.

In a subsequent post I explained to another board member the following:Here's the link to the post: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread....7#pid19087

(10-07-2011 04:58 AM)zonsb Wrote: I was a bit peeved at NonE resorting to his usual self being a pest. I could have, and should have, not made the commentary you quoted. As I had already committed myself to not playing along with NonE's childish (trollish) game by responding with an argument to his non-argument as though he had made an argument.

He was more fun when he used the ignore button on me. Him lurking in the shadows riding on the "coattails" of other members -- replying to their posts but not mine -- whom quoted my comments within their replies, wherein he would make derogatory commentary toward me yet without replying to my post directly because he couldn't see them due to him having put me on his ignore list. Obviously he didn't want to ignore my comments. I suppose he thought he could use the ignore button to talk about me behind my back. Reminiscent of a toddler that covers his eyes with his hands and says, "you can't see me."

NonEntity · 10-13-2011, 04:22 PM

I will reiterate.

A common criminal is honest. He sticks out his gun and says "give me your money/car/whatever." This is honest. I did not say it was honorable, I said it was honest. What's so difficult about that for you, zonsb?

Sigh.

- NonE