NomadicHorn

I agreed that I could well lose at the Fifth Circuit if the court got it wrong although admittedly I didn't think that would happen. But it did. My disagreement was with lawyers who maintained that I *should have* lost at the Fifth Circuit, and who did not recognize the court's clearly established case law and therefore thought QI should defeat me. There was room for disagreement about what was specific enough to be "clearly established" and I had my view, shared by Judge Elrod, and they had their view shared by the other two judges who ruled against me. I maintain those two judges weren't actually interested in the law, didn't reply to Judge Elrod's dissent, didn't even take on the issue with any substance whatsoever because they were simply not going to rule against the Border Patrol. One of them had dissented in one of the previous cases that was central in my argument that previous court precedent clearly established the law and he slept through the entire oral argument. He didn't rule against me based on legal reasoning. He ruled against me because he was a horrible judge. But we certainly won't come to any meeting of the minds a decade later on matters of QI although I am glad to see the nation has been slowly moving in my direction on the notion of QI with law enforcement more generally. I can't argue about the girl's car but I no longer have that car. True story, was in Key West and we had just bought the camper van. I walked into a gas stationed and a young kid was behind the counter. I asked him if he had a car, he said no, I said "do you want one?" He said yes. Produced the title and signed it over to him. And that was that. So now I drive a girl's van.

Well I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems my honor has been questioned by an intellectual and powerful representative of the legal establishment whom I most greatly respect. This cuts deep. But perhaps it's an opportunity for a growing experience for me. Toward that end, could you please supply the best argument you can muster for your conclusion that I am "inherently dishonest?" Perhaps the top three assertions of me lying followed by your evidence demonstrating the falsehood I have foisted upon others might help me with my spiritual progression under your tutelage? As a person you have only interacted with online, and given your claim that I am "inherently dishonest" I would imagine a man of your intellectual stature would have no problem coming up with proof of three lies. I thank you in advance, and will now show myself out and await your wisdom displayed as usual.

Don't mind me, just wanted to offer a different perspective on these comments from the lawyer who erroneously thought I was convicted of a crime I was never charged with. I know Dr. Bleeper is a huge fan of the contest of ideas and sharing information so that people can be better informed and decide for themselves. With such a commitment to truth, I don't want to let him down hence my brief and temporary return. Gatorubet says I harassed and cyberstalked the politician. For an alternative view, the court ruled precisely that I did not harass or cyberstalk the politician. I merely shared my opinion on a public forum on the internet without profanity, threats, or defamation. And surely nobody objects to that, right? Gator also said the nature of our dispute was "different" from his memorializing the Japanese American internment as part of the politician's role with the taxpayer funded memorial but that is also incorrect. My criticism of him was that he used the memorial to attack Republicans but not Democrats, that he was silent and did not endorse a state law that would block a federal law that legalized the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial, and that he actually invited a politician to give the memorial's 75th commemoration speech when that very politician had voted to make indefinite detention without charge or trial legal when he was in Congress. While I am hesitant to disagree with somebody as brilliant at Gatorubet, I must disagree with his assertion that my criticism was different from the politician's role with the memorial dedicated to ensuring indefinite detention without charge or trial does not happen again. Additionally, Gatorubet makes a false claim that I used "socks" to harass and insult the politician. Gator doesn't provide any source for his false claim, and the court found that when the politician asked me to stop contacting him, I never contacted him again. Outside of Gator's novel assertion, I don't think there is even such a claim in any of the court filings alleging that I used fake accounts, although they did try to claim that my Facebook page with my first and middle names and my picture was somehow a crafty move of deception on my part but that argument wasn't persuasive or particularly relevant. Anyway, I just wanted to add that into the discussion as I know Dr. Bleeper appreciates facts and reasoned discussion and I didn't want to let such a principled gentleman down. Pardon the interruption, I'll show myself out now.

If I might just dip in here for just one second, I would recommend people read the Kitsap County Superior Court's opinion itself, in addition to the always-quality perspective of Gatorubet (who once thought I had been convicted of something without being charged) but has since then deeply studied and considered just exactly what happened so that he can report back to you all. Those who want to find a collection of national news stories, an NPR audio program and all the court documents to include all the filings can find that assembled here. I would recommend those reading the words of our esteemed colleague Gatorubet also check out those other links in addition to the older link and story from 2017 that he supplies. And if you really want to do a deep dive and go blind on the amount of evidence presented, you can see the full picture of what I dealt with here if you are determined to answer the question, "but was VAPA an asshole for criticizing a politician, or was the politician actually a very immoral individual who deserved to be criticized?" Okay, thank you again for indulging me and I'll show myself out once more.

Pardon me, excuse me, let me just squeeze past you fellas for one second to correct Gatorubet so the rest of you don't suffer from the lengthy research he obviously did (he posted a thread about my free speech case so he's obviously looked deeply into this litigation and just missed a few small details). I was never "convicted" of anything. I've never been convicted of anything. In this case, I wasn't even charged with anything. That may lead a clever lawyer to ask "well then how did you have standing to knock the law down!" A prosecutor emailed saying they were going to sit on the decision on whether to charge me or not depending on my future actions/speech. Based on that email, I got standing to sue the State. Which is even more interesting because prosecutors had already decided not to charge me because they recognized it would violate the First Amendment as this Decline to Prosecute notice shows. The prosecutors also wrote that the muni court judge (personal friends of the politician who was trying to silence my speech) had overstepped when she issued a protection order (which I beat on appeal). And not to quibble with Gatorubet who is a brilliant lawyer just like TwiceHorn, but the speech the politician was trying to silence was ruled by the court to be non-profane, truthful, and non-threatening speech about a public figure on a matter of public importance and the pinnacle of protected speech. Or as Gatorubet calls it, an asshole just being an asshole. Good TechDirt article on the litigation here. And for those interested in the Border Patrol litigation I recommend watching a small portion of the video here starting at 45:10 to get a bit of a different view of that incident from how the esteemed lawyers here have presented it. Now I'll show myself out again. No need to grab the pitch forks and sorry for the interruption.

Anyway, the Hank troll has shown up and the same pattern will repeat. Weak men will show up with their attempts at argument or beating their chests with their "credentials" and I will make them look like fools. Then they will start with the propaganda and smears to try to paint me as some right wing nut job, or a militia guy, or whatever -- tactics that have become increasingly popular by a certain group of people in this nation with disastrous results (and in case you're wondering, that unfortunate slide is readily evident on Surly). Then I will respond in kind to the insults, except better, and they will cry about what a big meanie I am. Bern will say I'm "over the top" while the mob calls for my head, and the pitch forks will come out. I could just suffer the insults and smears and the idiotic claims of me being "crazy" in the hopes of having a valuable conversation with the valuable members of the board from time to time, my submission being the goal here (as it is in an encounter with a bad cop), but that's not how I roll. So I'll bid you assholes adieu and show myself out. Maybe I'll pop back by in another decade just to remind GatoruBet and his friends that a real American exists outside of hollow claims on this board. Always nice chatting with you guys. Cheers.

I was hoping the same angry, bitter, irrational people still smarting from my better argument and honesty would have remained the same angry, bitter, irrational people I remembered. Turns out that after a decade has gone by, they have really flowered into wonderful people. What should we talk about next? Knitting?

Thanks for pointing out how nutty I am with that sane comment.

Ah, whatever I do I'm sure you'll still be here posting lonely threads angry about my legal victories and characterizing all my activism in the worst light you can muster. Just like you tried to do (to an audience of just you) when I had a law knocked down that made posting online with an intent to "embarrass" a person a crime punishable by a year in jail. The ACLU supported me with an amicus brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation supported me, I was rep'd by the top First Amendment lawyer in the nation for free.....but there was GatoruBet complaining about it. At least one person stopped by to point out that it was a bad law. So you trying to mischaracterize the Border Patrol discussion from a decade ago isn't going to lead to a fruitful conversation. I said then that you and others could well be right that I'd lose with the QI excuse (which is abused left and right in court). I maintained that the law was clearly established in the Fifth Circuit and so QI should have been overcome. I maintain that position as did Judge Elrod with her dissent. I also maintain that your disagreement with me wasn't actually centered on the law, it was centered in your value system. And that is where we disagree and that is what motivated you to create that thread about me long after I had left this board. Your real disagreement with me, and men like me, can be imagined as a boot. Stomping on a human face. Forever.

Copy, you think I'm nuttier than squirrel shit and you publicly express that opinion of me, but you don't know or care what the nuttiest thing about me that led you to that conclusion is. But then you confirm it's the fact that I share the opinion of Fifth Circuit Judge Jennifer Elrod, the ACLU, two Congressman from the video, et al (the nutty opinion) that government is not allowed under the Fifth Amendment (nor should it be) to have armed federal agents seize us inside the country and detain us for thirty-four minutes without even a shred of suspicion of any wrongdoing. And because I post here from time to time, as you do, that is also nutty. Thanks so much for clarifying that valuable opinion.

I think it's the thread for saying one thing and then saying the opposite four hours later? I used to hate brussel sprouts as a kid, but now I like them. I'll wait four hours and then claim I still don't like them. Gil Bang, please let me know if I'm doing it wrong.

I'll try to speed this up. If I am understanding you correctly, the nuttiest thing about me is... ... that I sued the Border Patrol and am of the opinion that armed federal government should not be able to seize and detain an American citizen inside the nation for thirty-four minutes without any reasonable suspicion of a crime (as opposed to your view that the federal government should be able to do that) and despite my view being shared by the ACLU, the Texas Civil Rights Project and other amici and despite it also being shared by Fifth Circuit Court Judge Elrod who agreed with me, and despite that video showing two Congressman agreeing with me and one apologizing to me on behalf of the federal government, me holding that view and filing that suit is the nuttiest thing about me and the pinnacle of your reasoning leading to the conclusion that I'm nuttier than squirrel shit. Did I get that right? If so, whew, that is pretty nutty. You've convinced me.

Let me try to ask it in a more simple way. Please quote the nuttiest thing about me. Thanks.

Says the guy who started this thread about me. And in so doing, actually demonstrated... that nobody cares.

Please quote the nuttiest thing about me. Thanks.