Without Due Process

[presonorek]

you claiming your rights were taken away because of something you said is a speech crime,,

I didn't punch anybody or break anything. I took no action. It was written speech only.

 

[progressive hunter]

I didn't punch anybody or break anything. I took no action. It was written speech only.

it was more than speech,, in a better time you could have just been killed

 

[presonorek]

as I said,, be greatfull times have changed and you werent just killed,,

I think that might be part of the logic of the judge. If she found me guilty then the psychopath would have felt satiated. If the judge would have found me not guilty then this psychopath might have likely killed me. The judge could have saved my life. Who knows? If I cyber stalked this lady then I have cyber stalked dozens of people in this forum alone and I will be cyberstalking many many more in the future.

 

[presonorek]

you claiming your rights were taken away because of something you said is a speech crime,,

I have just never heard of a speech crime. That's all.

 

[presonorek]

it was more than speech,

It was text messages. What do you mean it was more than speech? And people do get killed for the things they say.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have just never heard of a speech crime. That's all.

because they dont exist,,

It was text messages. What do you mean it was more than speech? And people do get killed for the things they say.

you said she told you to leave her alone and you refused and kept harassing her,,

back when times were better she would be justified in putting a bullet in your head and rolling your body in a ditch and walking away like nothing happened,,

I miss those days,,

 

[presonorek]

because they dont exist,,
you said she told you to leave her alone and you refused and kept harassing her,,

back when times were better she would be justified in putting a bullet in your head and rolling your body in a ditch and walking away like nothing happened,,

I miss those days,,

Most sane people just block the number. That's what I did. I don't see why going to the magistrate was necessary. I would have rather been killed though. At least that would have made sense.

I still don't think the freedom of speech means the same thing it did in 1789. It has changed a little bit. Some things aren't considered free speech anymore.

 

[progressive hunter]

Most sane people just block the number. That's what I did. I don't see why going to the magistrate was necessary. I would have rather been killed though. At least that would have made sense.

I still don't think the freedom of speech means the same thing it did in 1789. It has changed a little bit. Some things aren't considered free speech anymore.

in 1789 you would have been killed for bothering a person that just wanted to be left alone,,,

those were better times,, so consider yourself lucky and move on,,

 

[presonorek]

because they dont exist,,
you said she told you to leave her alone and you refused and kept harassing her,,

back when times were better she would be justified in putting a bullet in your head and rolling your body in a ditch and walking away like nothing happened,,

I miss those days,,

I like that video. It is correct. My old self is dead. This lady went after me from every direction imaginable. I said to her, "I don't know why you care. You don't even live here." I told her to send anything she said to me by mail and I gave her my address.

I know morally speaking I should kill her but I'm not going to. It isn't worth it. She filed criminal charges against me. I was only charged with one. She filed a sexual harrassment claim against me that was denied. She appealed and the appeal was denied. She filed a restraining order against me. She convinced the Board of Education to remove me from office. I lost over $10,000 in income. She is suing me for $300,000.

I know morally speaking I should kill her for these major disruptions in my life but I won't. It isn't worth it. I just have to believe she will get what she deserves and I have to just let it go. She is a disgusting sack of shit and I'm not. So at least I have that going for me. I'm not going to kill her though. Was that your advice?

 

[presonorek]

in 1789 you would have been killed for bothering a person that just wanted to be left alone,,,

those were better times,, so consider yourself lucky and move on,,

What's wrong with getting killed?

 

[progressive hunter]

What's wrong with getting killed?

your dead,,,

 

[presonorek]

in 1789 you would have been killed for bothering a person that just wanted to be left alone,,,

those were better times,, so consider yourself lucky and move on,,

By the way. This is a discussion about laws not culture.

 

[presonorek]

your dead,,,

I'm dead anyways. She did kill me. I am a different person. I am way more dangerous now than I have ever been in my life.

 

[progressive hunter]

By the way. This is a discussion about laws not culture.

speech is a right not a law,,

 

[presonorek]

it was more than speech,, in a better time you could have just been killed

Would you really go to the magistrate to file charges against someone for sending you a text message? I don't believe you would.

You aren't very convincing. I don't believe you are that petty. This bitch wanted to kill me. She used ever weapon at her disposal.

 

[progressive hunter]

Would you really go to the magistrate to file charges against someone for sending you a text message? I don't believe you would.

You aren't very convincing. I don't believe you are that petty. This bitch wanted to kill me. She used ever weapon at her disposal.

it wouldnt be for texting it would be for harassing,,

 

[presonorek]

it wouldnt be for texting it would be for harassing,,

Stop writing stuff on this forum to me or about me.

 

[progressive hunter]

Stop writing stuff on this forum to me or about me.

who are you??

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Of course. I would just expect a judge to follow the law. So I would think the incidence of constutional violations would be rare but they are abundant. The Supreme Court throws out cases all the time where a lower level judge violated the law. It is common for judges to piggyback off of case law when they disagree with the law. That's why I am led to believe these judges do have the authority to violate constitutional rights of individuals since being afforded a trial is due process. Your rights can be violated but not without the court's approval.

I don't know. I guess I have seen too much in life and spent too much time believing in the constitution. I'm pretty sure the constitution is only good for toilet paper when you run out. It's a fantasy.

Yeah it's unfortunate but the violations are abundant both at the lower courts and SCOTUS.

The reality is, that in certain circumstances, these judges make a determination on who they want to prevail after weighing who the defendant is and who the plaintiff is (in civil law). It's a strategy. They rule contrary to established law (case law & precedence) all of the time because they know that the average person does not have the finances to fund not just a lawsuit but to fund it through all of the iterations of the appellate process all the way up to the Supreme Court, IF SCOTUS will even agree to hear your case.

We grow up hearing all about our rights and freedoms and the U.S. Constitution, but the reality is very different.

 

[gipper]

Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated at all? or

Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated without due process?

This is just something I have started considering recently. Is there even a difference between these two concepts? To me one says your Constitutional rights can never be violated. One says that your Constitutional rights can only be violated by a judge. Has anybody ever considered what "without due process" actually means?

Is this an academic endeavor? I ask because government, which is supposed to protect the rights of the people as spelled out in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, is doing the opposite.