Juan Galt banned
Current time: 10-17-2017, 03:09 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Marc Stevens
Last Post: Freerangecanuck
Replies: 96
Views: 5081

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Juan Galt banned
08-11-2017, 07:16 AM
Post: #1
Juan Galt banned
Because of his incessant posts repeating the same crap, for not being able to post without an insult, I'm banning his account. Now, I know he will scream censorship and I'm afraid of his brilliant debunking of my work, so I'm leaving his posts intact. There are over 850 of them and people can read them and decide for themselves. See Juan, since I'm not deleting your posts, it's not censorship and since you're not posting anything new, well you get the idea. But flame away, just somewhere else.

I'm all for dissent, but when the forum is flooded with one user, who insults everyone on practically every post, who refuses to have a logical discussion and lies about my work, well I can only tolerate so much as it's clearly trolling and wasting time. One of Galt's lies is
(08-07-2017 04:01 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:   The ONLY times the Court has mentioned marc's motions IN A DISMISSAL ORDER - it has called them sophistry, frivolous and idiotic.
Why? Because they are!!!

As you can see, the motion is mentioned in the dismissal order and motion is granted, no mention of sophistry, frivolous and idiotic:
[Image: dismissal-with-prejudice.jpg]

And also:
[Image: wisconsin-dismissal.jpg]

Now typically Juan would insult me and make assumptions spinning another narrative, but these 2 documents are direct evidence contradicting Juan and Wesley Serra's false claims about my work. That's why Juan is being banned, because evidence, like the orders above, are never enough, he always has an insulting comeback to distract from the evidence. He always insults so new people to the website will be intimidated from investigation, just a gaslighting technique that is typical of lawyers.

If Juan were being even somewhat honest, he would allow for other plausible explanations based on the evidence. But he doesn't, he contradicts the evidence, makes assumptions and only permits one explanation, his, while ruling out my explanation that is based on direct evidence.
[Image: giphy.gif]

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2017 09:28 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #2
RE: Juan Galt banned
fwiw, my general accounting of it here and of JG's reasoning approach here...

fwiw2, i appreciate both the explanation, the reasoning, and the action.
(oh, and the opportunity!)

--eye2i

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 07:56 AM
Post: #3
RE: Juan Galt banned
Thank you. I stopped reading / joining discussions because of him

Silence is not necessarily agreement. If you really want to know, ask me
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 08:07 AM
Post: #4
RE: Juan Galt banned
Really? with 59 posts has a +1 rep.
Galt with 851 posts had a -1 rep.

He was so well liked, that minus 1 was all he was ever going to get.

Marc is protecting Galt from this
[Image: Hatty%20erasure.jpg]

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 09:28 AM
Post: #5
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-11-2017 07:56 AM)Really? Wrote:  Thank you. I stopped reading / joining discussions because of him

Thank you for the feedback, Really?.

It is my genuine intent to take it as +valued personal criticism/critique as far as my participation in such stoppage, and seek to adjust upwards accordingly.
Be the change you wish to see. --Gandhi

[Image: character0116.gif]
fwiw, or by way of reminder, i did and do tend to see such exchanges as mine with Juan Galt as akin to repetitious working out with weights (in this specific, deadweights). Which indeed can quickly become boring to merely watch or as the case may be, merely 'spot' another?
(and2, such can 2often become more like this:
[Image: penis-weight.jpg]
sort of contest; thin lines and such)
If any sort of welcome back, or such, might be in order, consider it as done!? --and please, i hope you will participate (more).

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 01:03 PM
Post: #6
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-11-2017 07:16 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  As you can see, the motion is mentioned in the dismissal order and motion is granted, no mention of sophistry, frivolous and idiotic:
[Image: dismissal-with-prejudice.jpg]

Hm. Interesting. The defendant's name is Jennifer R. Leeson; other than that, the order is accurate. There are, however, one or two minor details that you don't tell your readers.

See the "M" in the docket number? That means "misdemeanor". See the "AP"? That means "APPEAL". In West Virginia, misdemeanor trials are held, not in Circuit Court (whence this order comes) but in Magistrate's Court. The Magistrate on this case was one Michael Gissy. It was to him that Leeson presented your silly motion - and he denied it and convicted her. She appealed - appeals from Magistrate's Court in WV go to Circuit Court. As both the docket number and the court show, this order is from the appeal. And therefore, when the court dismisses, it doesn't dismiss the underlying case, it dismisses what is before it - the appeal. Leeson gave up, perhaps because of money, perhaps she finally realized that she was (you were) wrong. As he did a couple of weeks ago when he omitted two of the three pages of another order, Stevens misrepresents the facts.

Quote:And also:
[Image: wisconsin-dismissal.jpg]

I've addressed that order many times. If you don't look at it and see a pissed-off judge telling a prosecutor not to fuck with him, you haven't seen a whole lot. Definitely not Farmer's.

Quote:these 2 documents are direct evidence contradicting Juan and Wesley Serra's false claims about my work.

Not in this world.

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 02:11 PM
Post: #7
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 07:16 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  As you can see, the motion is mentioned in the dismissal order and motion is granted, no mention of sophistry, frivolous and idiotic:
[Image: dismissal-with-prejudice.jpg]

Hm. Interesting. The defendant's name is Jennifer R. Leeson; other than that, the order is accurate. There are, however, one or two minor details that you don't tell your readers.

You violated privacy and the reacted name why?

(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  See the "M" in the docket number? That means "misdemeanor". See the "AP"? That means "APPEAL".

I'll take your word on that until I've been given a reason not to.

(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  In West Virginia, misdemeanor trials are held, not in Circuit Court (whence this order comes) but in Magistrate's Court. The Magistrate on this case was one Michael Gissy. It was to him that Leeson presented your silly motion - and he denied it and convicted her.

While that may have been what happened, you've only made that claim. Seems some supporting evidence is missing.

Not that a Magistrate (a lawyer) would ever rule in his own favor.

(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  She appealed - appeals from Magistrate's Court in WV go to Circuit Court.

Seems some supporting evidence for that claim is missing.

(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  As both the docket number and the court show, this order is from the appeal. And therefore, when the court dismisses, it doesn't dismiss the underlying case, it dismisses what is before it - the appeal.

Quote:This matter, having come before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss; the Court being full advised of the premises and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED granting defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

"ORDERED granting defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice."

ORDERED to dismiss with prejudice.

I'm confused. Who was ordered to dismiss with prejudice? Gissy?

(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  Leeson gave up, perhaps because of money, perhaps she finally realized that she was (you were) wrong.

Proof of claim?

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 02:19 PM
Post: #8
RE: Juan Galt banned


Praise
be to
Allah!


And some kudos to Marc as well.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 02:57 PM
Post: #9
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  See the "M" in the docket number? That means "misdemeanor". See the "AP"? That means "APPEAL". In West Virginia, misdemeanor trials are held, not in Circuit Court (whence this order comes) but in Magistrate's Court. The Magistrate on this case was one Michael Gissy. It was to him that Leeson presented your silly motion - and he denied it and convicted her. She appealed - appeals from Magistrate's Court in WV go to Circuit Court. As both the docket number and the court show, this order is from the appeal. And therefore, when the court dismisses, it doesn't dismiss the underlying case, it dismisses what is before it - the appeal. Leeson gave up, perhaps because of money, perhaps she finally realized that she was (you were) wrong. As he did a couple of weeks ago when he omitted two of the three pages of another order, Stevens misrepresents the facts.

Wow, I don't have the time to lay out the depravity of this post, suffice to say for now, Wesley has again cherry picked the information to make a false claim against me. What he failed to mention is that while this was appealed from the magistrate's court, it was a trial de novo.

"In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal (de novo is a Latin expression meaning "afresh", "anew", "beginning again", hence the literal meaning "new trial")." Source

So the motion to dismiss was for the original complaint. And Wes could have left the name out and had the same impact, but violating someone's privacy is not one of his concerns. Why include the name Wes?

The show where Gadsen called in and reported what happened is here about the 1:30 line:



If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2017 03:37 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #10
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-11-2017 02:57 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  See the "M" in the docket number? That means "misdemeanor". See the "AP"? That means "APPEAL". In West Virginia, misdemeanor trials are held, not in Circuit Court (whence this order comes) but in Magistrate's Court. The Magistrate on this case was one Michael Gissy. It was to him that Leeson presented your silly motion - and he denied it and convicted her. She appealed - appeals from Magistrate's Court in WV go to Circuit Court. As both the docket number and the court show, this order is from the appeal. And therefore, when the court dismisses, it doesn't dismiss the underlying case, it dismisses what is before it - the appeal. Leeson gave up, perhaps because of money, perhaps she finally realized that she was (you were) wrong. As he did a couple of weeks ago when he omitted two of the three pages of another order, Stevens misrepresents the facts.

Wow, I don't have the time to lay out the depravity of this post, suffice to say for now, Wesley has again cherry picked the information to make a false claim against me. What he failed to mention is that while this was appealed from the magistrate's court, it was a trial de novo.

"In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal (de novo is a Latin expression meaning "afresh", "anew", "beginning again", hence the literal meaning "new trial")." Source

So the motion to dismiss was for the original complaint. And Wes could have left the name out and had the same impact, but violating someone's privacy is not one of his concerns. Why include the name Wes?

The show where Gadsen called in and reported what happened is here about the 1:30 line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX39Udoc...t=1h31m48s

Thanks for the background Marc.

1:31:48 is the exact start time.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2017, 01:04 AM
Post: #11
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-11-2017 01:03 PM)wserra Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 07:16 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  As you can see, the motion is mentioned in the dismissal order and motion is granted, no mention of sophistry, frivolous and idiotic:
[Image: dismissal-with-prejudice.jpg]

Hm. Interesting. The defendant's name is Jennifer R. Leeson; other than that, the order is accurate. There are, however, one or two minor details that you don't tell your readers.

See the "M" in the docket number? That means "misdemeanor". See the "AP"? That means "APPEAL". In West Virginia, misdemeanor trials are held, not in Circuit Court (whence this order comes) but in Magistrate's Court. The Magistrate on this case was one Michael Gissy. It was to him that Leeson presented your silly motion - and he denied it and convicted her. She appealed - appeals from Magistrate's Court in WV go to Circuit Court. As both the docket number and the court show, this order is from the appeal. And therefore, when the court dismisses, it doesn't dismiss the underlying case, it dismisses what is before it - the appeal. Leeson gave up, perhaps because of money, perhaps she finally realized that she was (you were) wrong. As he did a couple of weeks ago when he omitted two of the three pages of another order, Stevens misrepresents the facts.

Quote:And also:
[Image: wisconsin-dismissal.jpg]

I've addressed that order many times. If you don't look at it and see a pissed-off judge telling a prosecutor not to fuck with him, you haven't seen a whole lot. Definitely not Farmer's.

Quote:these 2 documents are direct evidence contradicting Juan and Wesley Serra's false claims about my work.

Not in this world.

Hey Wes, Marc and Calvin have been more than affordable to you in allowing you to remain here so why not let me back into Quatloos? It's not like I caused an uproar or any concern. I just want prove you and the other idiots wrong, there on the forum, rather than you using peer studies and continual self-back slapping, concerning the fact that you have no evidence that the codes, statutes, rules, laws and ordinances apply to me.

Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment. Do not act on anything entered anywhere by the avatar known as pigpot.

All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2017, 06:59 AM
Post: #12
RE: Juan Galt banned
I too must applaud Marc's actions and thank him.

Maybe now we can go back to helping folks, and helping new folks research and learn, like Really said. Good post Really ! I have been seeing this happen for too long and it upset me to no end.

Keep it up Wes. Maybe we will see two bans in one year around here !

The owner of this forum is not an ogre that rules with an iron fist. To the contrary, he is way more laid back than anyone I know, and he actually invites criticism....When It Is Based On Something !....Like proof.

Well done Marc !
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2017, 08:10 AM
Post: #13
RE: Juan Galt banned
Thanks Rip, I appreciate it. I don't have the time today to fully address it, but that post by Wesley really drives home how dishonest he is, if anyone sees him as credible after that, they have problems. He deliberately left out it was a trial de novo, if he knows the defendant's name, he has to know it was a new trial. What a disgraceful thing to do, but Wesley is a lawyer and former prosecutor, so it comes with the territory.

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2017, 08:40 PM (This post was last modified: 08-13-2017 08:43 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #14
RE: Juan Galt banned
(08-12-2017 06:59 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  Maybe now we can go back to helping folks, and helping new folks research and learn, like Really said. Good post Really ! I have been seeing this happen for too long and it upset me to no end.

Who is this "we", Kemosabe? [Image: icon_indian.gif]
(NonE States there is no "we"!?!) Stare

i really don't get this line of thinking. And getting upset to no end?¹
i can only offer than some self-examination might be of value.
i mean, it's a web forum so there's no restriction on simultaneous posts/threads going on, so how is it stopping, as now going back to, the helping of folks/research/learning? i genuinely don't get that argument. How is it that those two things can't happen simultaneously again?

And it's not like (regrettably in this context) it's Reddit or Facebook or something, where there's boo-coo folks posting and new threads are popping like holiday fireworks, with it sprawling like news ticker feeds on 9-11, no?
[and along this line, please show me the times in the past, that this same flickering of activity came, then went, that afterwards, a.) "helpful" posts/traffic flourished, or b.) new users came bounding out of the woodwork seeking help --or otherwise? --user Really?'s post not being ignored/discredited, but rather typical of such times? and, perhaps --perhaps-- Really? is indeed in need of some help... with the forum's nifty features? Huh? or lingering control issues?²]

And the forum provides a coupla nifty readily available means of the likes of Juan Galt posting not preventing such, no?
  • It provides who the new/latest posts are made by; so don't like eye2i2hear's posts, note the name, and don't click on those aka ignore;
  • or if you slip up, there's that nifty scroll feature;
  • don't even want to be able to see such (because it upsets you to no end¹), use the forum "Ignore" feature.
Problem not solved how? Lack of self-control?
[Image: character0116.gif](seeing as how some others feel they are benefiting in working out with dumbbells? and that both things can work simultaneously? [Image: fencing.gif] don't want to watch another working out, find it boring to a waste of time, kewel, use the tools at hand...)
On the aspect of any "But what about the new users, like running them off!?" --i'm inclined to counter, that if that's all it takes, what's the odds they'll be up for what lies ahead dealing with the other levels Legalista Bureaucrats at their finest aka their most vitriol to caustic to con artistry to aggression to manipulative to bullying etc in the real world? [Image: judge%20rulin.gif?dl=0] Grinning Cop And how did Con Juan's being here not exemplify practically all of the above (in a safe environment no less)? And present folks with an opportunity to practice confronting such --or seeing it confronted, helpfully, here?
(or, you know, ignore/Ignore/scroll...?)
(like i do Survivor!)
i lean towards it being a bit utopian, to lingering control temptation, to think/claim such can't/shouldn't be here, myself --for long enough for them to reveal themselves for what they are, i.e. especially if they claim to be anarchists/voluntaryists but merely with another approach (but that they never seem to ever get around to sharing³), then simply escort them off the 800 acres pixels, then.? [especially when they've got "millions" (and all that time spent here) to use to buy & setup their own pixel kingdom aka website!? /poke]
[Image: rodeo%20bullride%20%28sketch%29.gif?dl=0]
Sincerely (intended),
--eye2i

_____________________________
1. if that's a tinge of hyperbole, which i generally hope it is, then discount here as needed please?

2. nothing derogatory intended in that; heck, we've all had our share of contending with our upbringing/Educations/power addiction detox, no? [Image: fussin%27%20in%20mirror%20surprised.gif?dl=0]; which doesn't ignore either, that our values, preferences & (like) our tastes can simply be different.?

3. in Juan Quixote's case, i suppose he'd claim he did give his alternative/NonFatally Flawed approach: ESCAPE!! ? Run for the Hills /RubyRidge/WacoTX

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-13-2017, 08:05 AM
Post: #15
RE: Juan Galt banned
I have mixed emotions regarding Gone Galt.

He refused to honestly answer any questions that would illustrate the errors in HIS narrative.

He would do the lawyers tap dance.



He would deliberately miss the point, deliberately ignore what was actually being asked, make up straw men demanding immediate replies.

Unlike in the den o' vipers (court) wherein Galt claimed to reside;
where taking advantage of a judge thinking his time is so, so important that answers must be perfect;
Galt posted here on a forum where inchoate interrogatories could be corrected, honed to perfection, and resubmitted to actually get at the concept.

Because of this, I wrote this.

My Two Cents

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)