The Post and Email

User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

The Post and Email

#1

Post by DaveMuckey » Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:25 pm



I think this guy has to be a topic unto hisself.



[/break1]wordpress.com/]The Post & Email



John Charlton's the name. Naturally, use protection.



This one is his latest on the history of the anti-Vietnam War movement (I think).



[/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/26/declassified-fbi-report-exposes-communist-seedbed-for-obama-associates/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... ssociates/



My favorite is the Web Dubola Club.* I remember those meetings. We ate a lot of M&Ms there. Web was a real hoot!



* Don't tell John it's really the WEB DuBois Society...



User avatar
CJ Roberts
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Chicago Sunroofing

The Post and Email

#2

Post by CJ Roberts » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:16 pm



All I can say is the guy is a real coward with the moderation.


You're the kind of lawyer guilty people hire.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7761
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

The Post and Email

#3

Post by PatGund » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:41 pm



All I can say is the guy is a real coward with the moderation.Which means he's a typical birther.



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

The Post and Email

#4

Post by DaveMuckey » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:52 pm



All I can say is the guy is a real coward with the moderation.Mine is still under moderation:Phil MarloweYour comment is awaiting moderation.Back in my college days, I used to bring donuts to the Web Dubola Club meetings. Like everyone mentioned here, I grew out of that phase.



bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

The Post and Email

#5

Post by bogus info » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:37 am



[/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/28/spotlight-judge-jerome-b-simandle/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -simandle/Spotlight: Judge Jerome B. SimandleSeptember 28, 2009 by John Charlton A PRINCETON MAN WHO ROSE RAPIDLY IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, WAS AN EARLY NAIDER’S RAIDERby John Charlton(Sept. 28, 2009) — Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s court is currently hearing the case of Kerchner et al. vs. Obama et al. The Post & Email will from time to time publish Spotlight reports on public officials in the news, to highlight their background and personal history, available from public sources and those who have known them in life.Jerome B. Simandle was born in Binghamton, NY, in 1949. He graduated in 1967 from Binghamton North High School.Simandle at PrincetonSimandle was one of the early “Nader’s raiders.”In the summer of 1970, while still an undergraduate at Princeton, he co-authored a paper for the Center of Responsive Study of Law, with Reuben Robertson, demanding the FAA release “Systemworthiness Analysis Program” reports (SWAP reports).more here: [/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/28/spotlight-judge-jerome-b-simandle/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -simandle/



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31118
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

The Post and Email

#6

Post by mimi » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:38 am



The Kreep mentioned John Charlton on the Chalice show. When he was talking about Connie's letter to Judge Land. He didn't say anything other than it seemed like Charlton had inside info from somewhere. Nothing much.



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

The Post and Email

#7

Post by DaveMuckey » Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:22 pm



http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... /Spotlight: Judge Jerome B. SimandleSeptember 28, 2009 by John Charlton A PRINCETON MAN WHO ROSE RAPIDLY IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, WAS AN EARLY NAIDER’S RAIDERby John CharltonJerome B. Simandle was born in Binghamton, NY, in 1949. He graduated in 1967 from Binghamton North High School.Wait a minute! I was born in Long Beach, CA in 1949. And I graduated from John North HS in 1967 in Riverside, CA.Coincidence or Conspiracy?



bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

The Post and Email

#8

Post by bogus info » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:23 am



This guy is trashing Judge Land now.



[/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/28/spotlight-judge-clay-d-land/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... ay-d-land/

Spotlight: Judge Clay D. Land

September 28, 2009 by John Charlton



LIFE-LONG REPUBLICAN, PROMOTED FROM STATE LEGISLATURE TO FEDERAL BENCH

by John Charlton

excerpt

Financial Disclosures have been problematic

Judicial Watch publishes the public financial disclosures of Judge Land. A number of them have had to be amended due to an apparent failure of Judge Land to keep track of his numerous investments.



In 2003, Judge Land had to follow a follow up report for failure to report various investments in Mirant Common Stock and Worldcom Common Stock.



His reports filed for the years 2003-7 list investments in many of the largest companies backing Barack Obama, such as Microsoft and Comcast.



In his 2004 report he also lists and investment with Time Warner, Inc..



In this 2005 report he lists salary from Buchanan & Land, LLP.



In his 2006 report he adds a follow up report, once again, for failure to disclose some 25 investments in Banks and Mutual Funds; in addition to his 62 other investments in a slew of companies. He also reported income once again from his law firm.



In this 2007 report he claims income as a self-employed lawyer, and that from his law firm Buchanan & Land LLP, along with 56 other investments in Mutual Funds, Banks and other industries and services.



It is difficult to understand how, with so many varied investments, Judge Land has managed to avoid conflicts of interest in the numerous cases he has heard. Moreover, seeing that many of these companies would be impacted if the laws signed by Barack Hussein Obama’s were declared null and void, on account of his lack of eligibility for office, it also seems reasonable to ask why Judge Land did not recuse himself in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.emphasis original.



This guy is a piece of work.



bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

The Post and Email

#9

Post by bogus info » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:30 am



Okay legal eagles, what is this BS? :? [/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/29/yes-virginia-south-carolina-you-can-save-the-republic/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -republic/Yes, Virginia & South Carolina: You can save the Republic!September 29, 2009 by John Charlton AN INTERVIEW WITH THE TONA COMMITTEE, ON THE AMAZING STORY OF THE ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENTby John CharltonThere is nothing more fascinating that the story of the Original 13th Amendment, how it was ratified, accepted by the Federal Government, and subsequently omitted, forgotten and denied by a national political elite which pandered for handouts from foreigners. The original Amendment imposed the penalty of the loss of U.S. citizenship on anyone who took money or favors from foreign governments.To understand the history behind the original 13th Amendment, I decided to seek an interview with one or more of the members of the TONA Committee who have spent nearly a generation investigating and researching its history.The TONA Committee worked together to answer the questions I submitted, but for the sake of format, I have layed out the interview, as if I spoke with Mrs. Suzanne Nevling, one of the committee members.more here [/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/29/yes-virginia-south-carolina-you-can-save-the-republic/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -republic/



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7761
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

The Post and Email

#10

Post by PatGund » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:39 am



Okay legal eagles, what is this BS? :?Ah the mythical "real 13th Amendment"[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_ ... _Amendment"The assertion that the amendment was validly ratified has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with the assertion that the amendment was indeed ratified, judges have brushed those claims aside. In Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005), a tax protester raised the amendment as one of his defenses to a charge of tax evasion. The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution":In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in 1861. As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor. However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide.In another case, Sibley v. Culliver, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff'd 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004), a federal court in Alabama found that the defendant's invocation of the amendment worked to his detriment. The court took note of documents produced by the defendant, a convicted murderer who submitted documents in support of his appeal claiming that the amendment rendered his conviction invalid:These documents allege in great detail a complex conspiracy by an illegal monopoly, the American Bar Association, which resulted in a take-over of the judicial systems of this country, both federal and state, by the ABA and its related entities, including the Alabama State Bar Association and Alabama's Unified Court System. It is then alleged that the ABA-controlled system is illegal and in violation of what is referred to as the "missing Thirteenth Amendment," to the United States Constitution, which stated that any person who accepts a title of nobility forfeits his United States citizenship and which Amendment was ratified but subsequently hidden or excised from the law. Since lawyers and judges accept the titles "Esquire"/"The Honorable," it is argued, they are not citizens and the entire judicial system is illegal. Furthermore, these documents contend that the charge of conviction in this case, capital murder of a police officer acting in the line of duty, is unconstitutional because it bestows upon police officers special rights or a special designation of the worth of life in contravention of the "missing Thirteenth Amendment." The documents then explain that these are reasons that Sibley and his wife refused appointed counsel on appeal and refused to pursue matters any further in the court system and that only Congress can give them relief.The Sibley court dismissed the appeal, concluding in part that the defendant was simply not seeking relief through the courts.It seems to be popular with conspiracy theorists and the "Sovereign Citizen" movement. Plus anyone with an ax to grind against the legal system in this country, as the people who believe this also tend to believe that any attorney using "Esq." after their name is accepting a title of nobility and therefore is not a US citizen. (You'll hear this brought up along with the claim of British control of the American Bar Association.)



gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

The Post and Email

#11

Post by gentrfam » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:49 am



Okay legal eagles, what is this BS? :? [/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/29/yes-virginia-south-carolina-you-can-save-the-republic/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -republic/There is really no amount of BS these folks won't engage in, is there? The ADL has a document about [/break1]adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp]asinine legal arguments and it looks like they're just picking randomly from the list. This myth is addressed in section 9. Apparently, there was also a law review article about it recently: The" Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility by Jol A. Silversmith, 8 Southern Calif. Interdisciplinary Law Jrnl 577 (spring 1999)



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7761
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

The Post and Email

#12

Post by PatGund » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:52 am



Okay legal eagles, what is this BS? :? [/break1]wordpress.com/2009/09/29/yes-virginia-south-carolina-you-can-save-the-republic/]http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... -republic/There is really no amount of BS these folks won't engage in, is there? The ADL has a document about [/break1]adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp]asinine legal arguments and it looks like they're just picking randomly from the list. This myth is addressed in section 9. Apparently, there was also a law review article about it recently: The" Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility by Jol A. Silversmith, 8 Southern Calif. Interdisciplinary Law Jrnl 577 (spring 1999)You mean this one?[/break1]thirdamendment.com/missing.html]http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html"An insufficient number of states ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment ("TONA") to make it part of the Constitution.(17) But, although mostly forgotten in this century, the amendment was more than just a footnote to history in the last century. Well into the second half of the nineteenth century, some textbooks, state compilations of law, and even on one occasion a compilation of law published under the auspices of Congress erroneously included TONA as if ratified.(18) Further, after the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution in 1992, scholars noted that if James Madison's amendment could be ratified after 203 years, there was no immediately obvious reason why TONA was not still viable, if still far distant from becoming part of the Constitution.(19)But even before the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment gave the other amendments to the Constitution that were submitted to the states but not ratified(20) their fifteen Warhollian minutes of fame, TONA also had received attention from a different--and disturbing--source. In August 1991, an extremist small-press magazine entitled AntiShyster published a series of articles by David Dodge,(21) who claimed to have discovered that TONA in fact had been ratified and later suppressed.(22) Dodge's articles have found a ready audience in many extremist organizations,(23) and have found their way onto the Internet, where they are available from world wide web sites, along with additional commentary and information from TONA proponents.(24) Following Dodge, TONA proponents put forward an assortment of "constitutional nonsense," such as the claim that the amendment would exclude lawyers ("esquires") from public office.(25) Some even use TONA to justify "sentencing" state officials to death or murdering police officers.(26)"



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

The Post and Email

#13

Post by Welsh Dragon » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:01 pm



The missing thirteenth amendment ! Well I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised it's been mentioned at FR & The Betrayal a few times in the last few weels so perhaps it was due fro a comeback.There are really two parts to it - one is the interesting question of was it ratified? - It wasn't the law review article that Pat G has posted a link to is conclusive on that. But the second part is where it gets crazy - the TONA advovates argue that not only was it passed but it stripped citizenship from all lawyers and bankers. Because they argue 'esquire' is a 'title of nobility' (someone tell Orly!). It's all supposed to be a British plot to keep the US subservient to the British Crown!The argument is farcical in itself but my own research established that when the Senate voted 26 -1 in favor of the amendment at least 13(and probably 14) of the Ayes were ''esquires'!



User avatar
DrConspiracy
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:04 pm
Occupation: Volunteers with Habitat for Humanity
Contact:

The Post and Email

#14

Post by DrConspiracy » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:30 pm



But, although mostly forgotten in this century, the amendment was more than just a footnote to history in the last century. Well into the second half of the nineteenth century, some textbooks, state compilations of law, and even on one occasion a compilation of law published under the auspices of Congress erroneously included TONA as if ratified.


Looking for gold coins in a bucket of mud - since 2008.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41573
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

The Post and Email

#15

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:29 pm



The discussions of TONA remind me of this (as I am one singleminded bastard): Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. Esquire. A title of nobility?



I personally do not like to use "Esq." and you will never, ever, find it on any paper or pleading I have created. When I send letters to other lawyers I do not include it. I find it to be a silly honorific. Indeed, I eschew Mr. except in direct address. When one of those telephone marketers is talking to me, and I have no choice (e.g., I am ordering something I need), and s/he refers to me as "Stern," I say, "Please address me as Mr. Friegen. I want a business relationship, not a date."



Likewise, although I have a J.D., I also do not use "Dr." as many people do. (Taitz would really like to call herself Dr. Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esquire.") When I was law clerking before I had passed the Bar, my parents would proudly send me mail addressed to "Dr. Sterngard Friegen." (My father is a doctor.) And I had to write them and tell them not to do that again, for if the postman felt chest pains coming on he might knock on my door!



I do believe physicians, veterinarians and dentists deserve "Dr." and I am respectful. Except when they or their nurses try to address me in the form indicating they want a date.



User avatar
CJ Roberts
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Chicago Sunroofing

The Post and Email

#16

Post by CJ Roberts » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:22 pm



I prefer to use GQ at the end of my name rather than Esq.


You're the kind of lawyer guilty people hire.

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

The Post and Email

#17

Post by MaineSkeptic » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:24 pm



My husband has both a JD and PhD and doesn't use the Esq, but is rather picky (some may even say prickly) about the Dr.I have a Ph.D. too, and I prefer to be on a first-name basis with pretty much everybody.



From time to time, when someone refers to me as "Mr. Skeptic" and the occasion seems to warrant it, I'll say, "It's Dr. Skeptic -- and call me Maine."



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34108
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

The Post and Email

#18

Post by realist » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:32 pm



My husband has both a JD and PhD and doesn't use the Esq, but is rather picky (some may even say prickly) about the Dr.I have a Ph.D. too, and I prefer to be on a first-name basis with pretty much everybody.



From time to time, when someone refers to me as "Mr. Skeptic" and the occasion seems to warrant it, I'll say, "It's Dr. Skeptic -- and call me Maine."But they doesn't haz to calls ya Johnson.


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

The Post and Email

#19

Post by MaineSkeptic » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:40 pm



Well, thats because you have people skills!LOL!! Thanks, but I'm not sure those who know me better would say that!



User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

The Post and Email

#20

Post by Epectitus » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:51 pm



I have a mere Master's degree. But as a total dago, I prefer to be called "Maestro."Sadly... everybody just calls me Frank.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2365
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

The Post and Email

#21

Post by Jez » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:54 pm



I have a mere Master's degree. But as a total dago, I prefer to be called "Maestro."Sadly... everybody just calls me Frank. Don't be sad. I have no degree at all. You should hear what I'm called at times.


I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

The Post and Email

#22

Post by MaineSkeptic » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:02 pm



I have a mere Master's degree. But as a total dago, I prefer to be called "Maestro."I know who you are! You're Bob Cobb!




Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

The Post and Email

#23

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 » Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:43 pm



The discussions of TONA remind me of this (as I am one singleminded bastard): Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. Esquire. A title of nobility?



I personally do not like to use "Esq." and you will never, ever, find it on any paper or pleading I have created. When I send letters to other lawyers I do not include it. I find it to be a silly honorific. Indeed, I eschew Mr. except in direct address. When one of those telephone marketers is talking to me, and I have no choice (e.g., I am ordering something I need), and s/he refers to me as "Stern," I say, "Please address me as Mr. Friegen. I want a business relationship, not a date."



Likewise, although I have a J.D., I also do not use "Dr." as many people do. (Taitz would really like to call herself Dr. Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esquire.") When I was law clerking before I had passed the Bar, my parents would proudly send me mail addressed to "Dr. Sterngard Friegen." (My father is a doctor.) And I had to write them and tell them not to do that again, for if the postman felt chest pains coming on he might knock on my door!



I do believe physicians, veterinarians and dentists deserve "Dr." and I am respectful. Except when they or their nurses try to address me in the form indicating they want a date.I'm with you Stern, when I started working for lawyers I was completely nonplussed by this "Esquire" nonsense, the other staff used to put it in pleadings etc., I immediately set about removing it. It is especially silly when female attorneys refer to themselves as "Esquire" (no offense to any of the lady lawyers here but it is specifically a term reserved for men), I simply think that Joe/Jane Bloggs, Attorney (or attorney for plaintiff/defendant etc.,) is sufficient, or hows about Joe/Jane Bloggs, J.D. Orly's habit of saying to people "I am a doctor and an Esquire" is even more ridiculous. I liken the American useage of the word similar to Michael Jackson naming his son "Prince" as well as others naming their children "Judge", "Queen" "Princess" "Duke" "Baron" etc., it is silly.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41573
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

The Post and Email

#24

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:22 pm



The discussions of TONA remind me of this (as I am one singleminded bastard): Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. Esquire. A title of nobility?



I personally do not like to use "Esq." and you will never, ever, find it on any paper or pleading I have created. When I send letters to other lawyers I do not include it. I find it to be a silly honorific. Indeed, I eschew Mr. except in direct address. When one of those telephone marketers is talking to me, and I have no choice (e.g., I am ordering something I need), and s/he refers to me as "Stern," I say, "Please address me as Mr. Friegen. I want a business relationship, not a date."



Likewise, although I have a J.D., I also do not use "Dr." as many people do. (Taitz would really like to call herself Dr. Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esquire.") When I was law clerking before I had passed the Bar, my parents would proudly send me mail addressed to "Dr. Sterngard Friegen." (My father is a doctor.) And I had to write them and tell them not to do that again, for if the postman felt chest pains coming on he might knock on my door!



I do believe physicians, veterinarians and dentists deserve "Dr." and I am respectful. Except when they or their nurses try to address me in the form indicating they want a date.I'm with you Stern, when I started working for lawyers I was completely nonplussed by this "Esquire" nonsense, the other staff used to put it in pleadings etc., I immediately set about removing it. It is especially silly when female attorneys refer to themselves as "Esquire" (no offense to any of the lady lawyers here but it is specifically a term reserved for men), I simply think that Joe/Jane Bloggs, Attorney (or attorney for plaintiff/defendant etc.,) is sufficient, or hows about Joe/Jane Bloggs, J.D. Orly's habit of saying to people "I am a doctor and an Esquire" is even more ridiculous. I liken the American useage of the word similar to Michael Jackson naming his son "Prince" as well as others naming their children "Judge", "Queen" "Princess" "Duke" "Baron" etc., it is silly.In my case it's "Sterngard Friegen, Attorney for We the People."



Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”