Gosh and golly! Does someone else have a dastardly plan for all those ebil Obots??

Everytime I think of Linda Tripp I get the image of John Goodman playing her on SNL. He was funny with that.

LIndainTX - persons who are or who have been engaged in the birther world and whose names appear in public court records may find themselves discussed on the Fogbow with their real names attached. Many, many posts may be generated discussing, debunking and mocking the theories of those persons.

If one of those persons joins the Fogbow after many, many posts have been generated the mods will not scrub Fogbow of the previous comments. Such a policy would allow those we observe to control and censor our comments here simply by signing up as a member. Not gonna happen.

However, once a person is a member they are entitled to the same consideration extended to other members. They have a right not to be insulted by other members. (In my opinion, that includes uncivil statements such as "we don't care about you here".)

They also have a right to have their personal information protected. Again, in my opinion, the link between LindainTx and the litigant Linda Belcher was established by LindainTx herself when LindainTx self-identified as a litigant and began discussing the details of the litigation. Those who "out" themselves can't put the genie back into the bottle.

But let's all be civil, eh?

This.

Thanks Somerset and Suranis. Nicest thing I think anyone here has ever said to me. I just hope this surgery to remove parts of two cervical discs relieves some or all of the pain. They are torn and leaking, causing intense compression on the nerve roots creating permanent nerve damage in both arms as well as triggering chronic spasms in my neck and back that are extremely painful. The long term epidural injections in my neck, left ankle and lower spine are pretty brutal. The first few lasted several months, but these last few aren't helping much.

Look, if any of you truly do have connections with Obama, we've been researching and found there is an 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Mulbury vs Madison, whereby every GOPer who refues to raise the debt limit without holding our economy hostage (trying to force cuts to the big 3) can be arrested as acts of sabotage and subversion of the Constitution. Please pass this along. It can also be used to arrest the GOP governor's implementing their right wing agenda's on states are acts that violate the Constitution. Jay called Chris Matthews private voicemail and others at MSNBC. We both call them all the time and give them stuff. It's kinda thrilling to give their producers stuff and a few hurs later our words and findings come back to us. We gave the Joe Walsh dirt to MSNBC and we never left home to find it. jay is on the phone right now calling everyone at MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. A lot of research can be found if one knows where to look for it, so to those who make fun of me for my Agoraphobia, consider this a peace offering. Here's what we found today:

The term "Domestic Enemy" as used in the "Oath of Office" or "Oath of Enlistment" is not defined in the laws specifically. However, Constitutional scholars have stated that everyone in America opposed to or working against the Constitution
is by definition a domestic enemy of the Constitution: presidents, senators, congressmen, judges, bureaucrats, military, and police included. The Constitutional scholars are basing their definition on the quote from the US Supreme court in Marbury vs. Madison, from 1803, where the Court stated that “All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
The term is left undefined so as to give prosecutors sufficient leeway to fit numerous acts (Subversion, Sabotage, Terrorism, Espionage, etc...) into the definition.

Ya'll have a good weekend now.

Oh boy. [highlight]Marbury v. Madison[/highlight] is familiar to all lawyers on this board. It is the a landmark case in which the Supreme Court declares its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and the concept of judicial review.

It does not stand for the proposition that one side in a political debate occurring in Congress may have the other side arrested.

Really, if this is the system you want, I believe Taiwan is the place for you. IIRC, that's the place where legislators regularly engage in fistfights for the enjoyment of YouTube audiences everywhere.

Gee, thanks, Lindain. I doubt anyone here had ever heard of Marbury v Madison and had no idea. It's such an obscure case, after all. Mulbury v Madison even less so, I'd suspect.

As a sometimes sufferer of agoraphobia (luckily mild in my case), I would never make fun of it. I hope you get relief.

We should immediately pass this along to Mr. Johnson.

Okay. Does that mean we can discuss published articles online which mention the real names of members here? Are you stating that if members here were/are part of any court proceedings, then it's okay to talk about them and use their real names? How about criminal proceedings? I just want to make sure I comply with your interpretation of rules since it was a lawyer member right here who advised me to make the use of my name an issue. Thank you for explaining how it works here.


Ya'll have a great weekend.

Mayberry versus Moblyson? Never heard of it.

And it allows the arrest of traitors in Congress? Wow. That's big news.

We are going to continue to discuss publicly available information, including and especially open court proceedings, and use the publicly available names of the persons identified in those articles and proceedings to distinguish who is being discussed.

Amendment. First. We haz one.

"This" meant I agreed with every word of raicha's post immediately above it, especially the "let's be civil".

I am not EVEN gonna ask who the "we" is in "we've been researching" and found Boysenberry v. Whodison.

Look, I despise the Tea Party for their ignorance and wishful thinking regarding the debt crisis. I even admit that I sometimes worry that the Madisonian system may provide too much power to people uninterested in engaging in the necessary compromise that is needed to govern.

I am not going to throw out the social compact merely because people got elected that are doing things that I don't like. Calling for the arrest of lawmakers because I may view such legislation as unconstitutional or view their antics as detrimental to the republic breaks the most sacred rule of democracy: That we accept the will of the voters, no matter how vehemently we may disagree with their mandates.

If I view legislation is unconstitutional I contribute to organizations that will challenge it in court. If I don't like what lawmakers are doing at any level of government, I work to replace them with those who I think will do a better job. If I fail to do this after an election, I vow to do my best to make my voice heard by those in power.

The debt crisis is bad. I am very sure I fully do not understand how bad it will be if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd. Nevertheless, the great evils of history were perpetuated when people looked for strongmen to solve our problems for us by any means necessary. I don't know what the President's contingency plan is. I admit I'm scared because I truly believe that there are people stupid enough who may have enough power to cause a default they are so naive to want.

I will not let that fear trample my love of the constitution and of democracy. America survived the Civil War, during which there was an election that decided the very course of the war. It can survive the Tea Party.

Thank you. I thought I was helping since this hostage-taking of our national security via threats to trigger the economic destruction of our country if Dems do not capitulate to economic blackmail. This is domestic economic terrorism by rwnj in the Tea Party, who have taken over the GOP.

A birther looking for a majick bullet.

Is that what I typed? LOL it was a typo. The pain is worse the past four days and I have taken a lot of pain medication. It's hard to type at all from permanent nerve damage in both hands from my injuries. Me bad. Sorry.

I "assumed" it was a typo as you later mentioned Marbury v Madison.

I was being sarcastic about no one here knowing about Marbury v Madison, as I would guess a good 98% at least know OF the case and I would suspect at least 50% can recite what Marbury was about (held) without looking it up... and it is not, as has been pointed out already, about anything even close to what you stated.

If an attorney was part of the "we" doing research and came up with your rendition of what Marbury holds (and if so that's a scary thought), you need to immediately find a different attorney to rely on for legal research.

Not so much a fan of Boysenberry. I dig the blueberry and the raspberry. But my all-time fave is the grapeberry. Yum.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. Even tho my spidey senses are telling me it's gonna get nasty.

Since Orly got the boot here, the percentage of lawyers familiar with Marbury v. Madison should be 100%. It is one of the first things taught in law school and is one of the top three most important Supreme Court cases ever. Perhaps the most important, as it provides the Constitutional and philosophical authority for everything the Court has done since.

And yes, if there is an attorney out there who just discovered Marbury this week and is breathlessly passing on this 208 year old information to Chris Matthews, that attorney should immediately join Orly Taitz in her Konstitushional law practice. They will be well suited to each other as it seems that neither of them can ever be embarassed by the depth of their ignorance of the law.

I know all the attorneys here are intimately familiar with Marbury. I was positing those percentages as among all members here, attorneys or not.

This discussion of Marbury brought back memories from one of Orly's arguments (and I can't remember if it was Judge Carter or Land) where he asked her to distinguish Marbury.

The result was hilarious.

ahhhh fun times.