Jump to content

Need Lawyer - New Braunfels - Criminal Mischief / Trespassing

BottleRocket
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30249

Posted
Posted
And this dogshit is why the whole board turned on him.

Yeah. The decision he won in Washington was because he was engaging in typical VAPA childish asshole behavior, and an unconstitutionally vague and over-broad law was used to try and stop his behavior. His decision to fight that conviction is a good thing. Free Speech was strengthened.

What VAPA refuses to see is that winning his suit for his improper conviction for being his normal annoying asshole self does not negate the reality that he was, in fact, acting like an annoying asshole.

Good news is, this is where VAPA and I find common ground. His being an annoying asshole and bad neighbor should not have been a crime. That’s just VAPA being VAPA.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NomadicHorn

NomadicHorn 11

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:


Yeah. The decision he won in Washington was because he was engaging in typical VAPA childish asshole behavior, and an unconstitutionally vague and over-broad law was used to try and stop his behavior. His decision to fight that conviction is a good thing. Free Speech was strengthened.

What VAPA refuses to see is that winning his suit for his improper conviction for being his normal annoying asshole self does not negate the reality that he was, in fact, acting like an annoying asshole.

Good news is, this is where VAPA and I find common ground. His being an annoying asshole and bad neighbor should not have been a crime. That’s just VAPA being VAPA.

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.

Edited by NomadicHorn
To again beg your indulgence, bye now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30249

Posted
Posted
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 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.



[url=https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/2017/07/13/bainbridge-case-heart-challenge-states-cyberstalking-law/474314001/]https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/2017/07/13/bainbridge-case-heart-challenge-states-cyberstalking-law/474314001/

Better facts here, not the article from a group focusing on the law. I said the law was over-broad and your suit a positive. I also said you were being the asshole that you are.

So - you harass a guy who wants to memorialize the tragedy of Japanese internment because he is insufficiently in agreement with you on a different issue. So you cyberstalk him and troll him. You create a Facebook site to harass and belittle him after you are blocked called “Clarence Moriwaki of Bainbridge Island”. You then change it to “Not Clarence Moriwaki of Bainbridge Island” when he objects.

Just like your trolling nutter self does, you posted supporting yourself using “Richard Lee” just like your hornmil and Vapa bullshit on Shaggy.

You shit all over this neighbor guy for not submitting to your beliefs. You harassed him and made him the target of your obsessive behavior. When blocked - you kept changing shit and using socks to harass and insult him.

Glad you established your rights. But only you would be proud that acting like an asshole resulted in a verdict supporting your rights to be asshole.


When are you going to apologize for your lying about you being Vapa and hornmil? I mean, even your free speech victory included you being an annoying childish troll using socks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NomadicHorn

NomadicHorn 11

Posted
Posted

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.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30249

Posted
Posted
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.
 

You forgot the House of Cards shots.

Look, just apologize for lying to us for years about VAPA/Horn.mil and we are all square. Or leave me out and apologize to everyone but me. I’d accept that too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NomadicHorn

NomadicHorn 11

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

So - you harass a guy who wants to memorialize the tragedy of Japanese internment because he is insufficiently in agreement with you on a different issue. So you cyberstalk him and troll him.

When blocked - you kept changing shit and using socks to harass and insult him.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30249

Posted
Posted
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.

Lots of words to duck apologizing about lying about VAPA/Hornmil. But you won’t admit it. You are inherently dishonest.

If I missed the minutia about you harassing the guy, sorry but it makes little difference. When everywhere you go you run into assholes, YOU’RE the asshole. This will be lost on you.

But like I said, nice rig. Enjoy your travels and stay safe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NomadicHorn

NomadicHorn 11

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:


Lots of words to duck apologizing about lying about VAPA/Hornmil. But you won’t admit it. You are inherently dishonest.

If I missed the minutia about you harassing the guy, sorry but it makes little difference. When everywhere you go you run into assholes, YOU’RE the asshole. This will be lost on you.

But like I said, nice rig. Enjoy your travels and stay safe.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hanrahan

Hanrahan 1306

Posted
Posted

I’m pretty sure most of the legal types were just telling you you were going to lose at the Fifth Circuit, which you did. You engaged over and over and over with lawyers arguing legal concepts. Plus you kinda came off like an ass and you drove a weird girl car. But a lot of folks thought you were right in principal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NomadicHorn

NomadicHorn 11

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I’m pretty sure most of the legal types were just telling you you were going to lose at the Fifth Circuit, which you did. You engaged over and over and over with lawyers arguing legal concepts. Plus you kinda came off like an ass and you drove a weird girl car. But a lot of folks thought you were right in principal.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4333

Posted
Posted

I have no interest in a decade-old beef about the 4th amendment and vaguely misogynistic vehicle smack talk, but I’d love a thread with just VAPA, Grendal, and Randolph Duke all talking past each other. Maybe a future podcast idea?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gyroprotagonist

gyroprotagonist 2594

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mole said:

I have no interest in a decade-old beef about the 4th amendment and vaguely misogynistic vehicle smack talk, but I’d love a thread with just VAPA, Grendal, and Randolph Duke all talking past each other. Maybe a future podcast idea?

the internet would break or ragnarok would start or maybe that's just what's on tap for 2022.  But yes, I had this same thought with these same posters.  is that weird?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4976

Posted
Posted
On 6/15/2021 at 6:15 PM, gyroprotagonist said:

the internet would break or ragnarok would start or maybe that's just what's on tap for 2022.  But yes, I had this same thought with these same posters.  is that weird?

Not really. Spend enough time standing around holding each other's dicks and you eventually get a sort of telepathic connection. Allegedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...