| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Bob Officer" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2008 01:17:58 AM |
| Object: |
John D's past failures. |
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
.
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
03 Feb 2008 12:25:54 PM |
|
|
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:sgqaq3lq4bqd5lqr725aev13e5as0innml@4ax.com...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
The Court and the defendants violated the law, YOU FOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
03 Feb 2008 03:01:31 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Bob Officer" <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
The Court and the defendants violated the law, YOU FOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!
Wentzky shows up waving his tiny ***** and runs head first into
reality, knocking himself even stoopider than before.
It never gets old.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gwen Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 05:38:25 AM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 1:25=A0pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Bob Officer" <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:sgqaq3lq4bqd5lqr725aev13e5as0innml@4ax.com...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
The Court and the defendants violated the law, YOU FOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!
Why is it that your irresponsibility is everybody else's fault?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 12:19:17 PM |
|
|
"Gwen Bennet" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1da05123-2cd7-4871-9654-dfd9a5012111@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Bob Officer" <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:sgqaq3lq4bqd5lqr725aev13e5as0innml@4ax.com...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
The Court and the defendants violated the law, YOU FOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!
*Why is it that your irresponsibility is everybody else's fault?
It is NOT any irresponsibility on my part.
The errors are on the part of the persons who committed those errors against
me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gwen Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 12:34:52 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 1:19=A0pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1da05123-2cd7-4871-9654-dfd9a5012111@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Bob Officer" <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:sgqaq3lq4bqd5lqr725aev13e5as0innml@4ax.com...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
The Court and the defendants violated the law, YOU FOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!
*Why is it that your irresponsibility is everybody else's fault?
It is NOT any irresponsibility,...
Just yours.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
03 Feb 2008 11:00:07 AM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 2:17=A0am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
way.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
03 Feb 2008 12:25:10 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court itself.
"The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000)."
--------
That referral was against the terms of the law and the case.
At no time was any magistrate permitted to rule in this case.
--------
"Despite this warning, Wentzky failed to object to the magistrate judge's
recommendation."
A GOD DAMNED LIE!
I objected to any magistrate ruling in that case at the appropriate time, in
writing, and the objection was filed with the US District Court before the
magistrate criminally interfered with the case.
--------
"Wentzky has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice."
Another GOD DAMNED LIE!
I OBJECTED, in writing, to any magistrate ruling in that case to the US
District Court itself.
My objection was filed in accordance with the law and with the court's own
procedures and it was recorded in writing. The magistrate was
Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally blocked from any input into that
case at all.
You are agreeing with criminals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 08:45:45 AM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court itself=
..
Very unlikely. You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
"The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. =A7 636(b)(1)(B) (2000)."
--------
That referral was against the terms of the law and the case.
No, it was not. The judge referred to the law that he was using.
At no time was any magistrate permitted to rule in this case.
Yes, they are.
--------
"Despite this warning, Wentzky failed to object to the magistrate judge's
recommendation."
A GOD DAMNED LIE!
Unlikely.
I objected to any magistrate ruling in that case at the appropriate time, =
in
writing, and the objection was filed with the US District Court before the=
magistrate criminally interfered with the case.
No magistrate criminally interred with your case. And you do not get
to define what the appropriate time was. And given that you did not
have a lawyer, a VERY big mistake, it is likely that the papers were
not filed in the proper form and with the proper office.
--------
"Wentzky has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice."
Another GOD DAMNED LIE!
Nope. You do not know the law or proper case procedure.
I OBJECTED, in writing, to any magistrate ruling in that case to the US
District Court itself.
Which is why the case was remanded back to the lower courts, which is
where you should have filed your objections. And by the sounds of it,
you did not file when you should have and with whom you should have.
My objection was filed in accordance with the law and with the court's own=
procedures and it was recorded in writing.
Very unlikely, given this ruling.
The magistrate was
Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally blocked from any input into that
case at all.
No, he was not. He Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally was
required to rule on any case that was presented to him, or to offer a
valid reason why he could not. You do not understand the law nor the
Constitution.
You are agreeing with criminals.
No, I am not agreeing with you. I am agreeing with the justices.
Therefore I am not agreeing with criminals.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 12:18:19 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court
itself.
*Very unlikely.
Another lie.
*You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
None.
"The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000)."
--------
That referral was against the terms of the law and the case.
*No, it was not.
False.
*The judge referred to the law that he was using.
False.
The magistrate was prohibited. by law and order, from interfering in this
case.
At no time was any magistrate permitted to rule in this case.
*Yes, they are.
Wrong, you ignorant liar.
The magistrate was prohibited from interfering in that case.
The law and order prohibited him from being involved.
--------
"Despite this warning, Wentzky failed to object to the magistrate judge's
recommendation."
A GOD DAMNED LIE!
*Unlikely.
False.
I objected to any magistrate ruling in that case at the appropriate time,
in
writing, and the objection was filed with the US District Court before the
magistrate criminally interfered with the case.
*No magistrate criminally interred with your case.
False.
*And you do not get to define what the appropriate time was.
The approrpitate time was defined and ORDERED by the court, YOU IDIOT!
That magistrate was prohibited from interfering in the case, by LAW and by
ORDER of Court procedure!
*And given that you did not have a lawyer, a VERY big mistake, it is likely
that the papers were
*not filed in the proper form and with the proper office.
More lies from you, you obstruction of justice fraud.
--------
"Wentzky has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice."
Another GOD DAMNED LIE!
*Nope. You do not know the law or proper case procedure.
More lies on your part.
The defendants failed to comply with the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ORDER.
The magistrate violated the LAW and the ORDER that prohibited him from being
involved in the case.
I OBJECTED, in writing, to any magistrate ruling in that case to the US
District Court itself.
*Which is why the case was remanded back to the lower courts, which is
*where you should have filed your objections.
The case was never remanded back to lower courts, fool.
*And by the sounds of it, you did not file when you should have and with
whom you should have.
A GOD DAMNED LIE!
My objection was filed in accordance with the law and with the court's own
procedures and it was recorded in writing.
*Very unlikely, given this ruling.
Another lie on your part.
The magistrate was
Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally blocked from any input into that
case at all.
*No, he was not.
You are an IGNORANT LIAR!
It is as I told you.
You are a anti-law, anti-justice, anti-USA fraud.
*He Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally was
*required to rule on any case that was presented to him, or to offer a
*valid reason why he could not.
You *ARE* an iognorant idiot.
The Court itself dictated that he could not involve himself in this case.
*You do not understand the law nor the
*Constitution.
You ARE a FRAUD!
You are agreeing with criminals.
*No, I am not agreeing with you.
You are allied with criminals.
*I am agreeing with the justices.
*****.
You are agreeing with liars.
*Therefore I am not agreeing with criminals.
Another lie on your part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 12:50:05 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...=
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
Therefore, I am telling the truth.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court
itself.
*Very unlikely.
Another lie.
Only by you. I am telling the truth that it is highly unlikely that
there were any lies in the court document.
*You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
None.
My statement is completely correct. Your lies are very blatant, and
you are well known for telling them. You do so in almost every post
you make, often several times a post.
"The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. =A7 636(b)(1)(B) (2000)."
--------
That referral was against the terms of the law and the case.
*No, it was not.
False.
My statement is completely true. You do not understand the law.
*The judge referred to the law that he was using.
False.
My statement is completely true.
The magistrate was prohibited. by law and order, from interfering in this
case.
The judge that is assigned this case is no interfering with it. He is
REQUIRED by law to sit on it and rule on it. You have yet to show
that any judge interfered with your case.
At no time was any magistrate permitted to rule in this case.
*Yes, they are.
Wrong, you ignorant liar.
You are the only ignorant liar here, and you are the one that is
wrong.
The magistrate was prohibited from interfering in that case.
The judge that was assigned the case was not interfering with it. And
he is required to rule on the case at some point in any case.
The law and order prohibited him from being involved.
Actually, since he was assigned this case, the law required him to be
involved.
--------
"Despite this warning, Wentzky failed to object to the magistrate judge'=
s
recommendation."
A GOD DAMNED LIE!
*Unlikely.
False.
My statement is completely true. It is unlikely that the quoted
statement is a lie.
I objected to any magistrate ruling in that case at the appropriate time=
,
in writing, and the objection was filed with the US District Court befor=
e the
magistrate criminally interfered with the case.
*No magistrate criminally interred with your case.
False.
My statement is completely true. You have not shown that any judge or
magistrate interfered in your case, much less in a criminal fashion.
And given your long history of lying and failing to accept the truth
and the facts, it is unlikely that any judge did criminally interfere
with your case as you claim.
*And you do not get to define what the appropriate time was.
The approrpitate time was defined and ORDERED by the court, YOU IDIOT!
Which you missed.
That magistrate was prohibited from interfering in the case, by LAW and by=
ORDER of Court procedure!
No magistrate not attached to the case did interfere with your case.
The judge that ruled on it was assigned the case to review and decide
whether to accept it for appeal as he is required to do by law and by
the court system.
*And given that you did not have a lawyer, a VERY big mistake, it is likel=
y
that the papers were
*not filed in the proper form and with the proper office.
More lies from you, you obstruction of justice fraud.
Where? I have not told any lies, and I am against the obstruction of
justice and fraud. You should really stop lying about people if you
want to be believed.
What I gave was an opinion based on what the ruling stated as well as
your history and how you present yourself in this forum. Since it was
my opinion, it cannot be a lie. It was a very big mistake not to
retain a lawyer. It is likely that you did not file the papers in the
proper form and with the proper officer. I can also easily see you
not filing them in time as well.
--------
"Wentzky has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after=
receiving proper notice."
Another GOD DAMNED LIE!
*Nope. You do not know the law or proper case procedure.
More lies on your part.
My statement was a statement of fact. You have demonstrated many
times that you do not know the law, and you do not understand proper
court procedure.
The defendants failed to comply with the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ORDE=
R.
And your evidence for this? Your opinion is meaningless without any
objective evidence.
The magistrate violated the LAW and the ORDER that prohibited him from bei=
ng
involved in the case.
And your evidence for this. Since he was assigned the case for review
before acceptance for appeal, he was required to be involved in the
case, and that was following the law and proper procedure. Your lack
of understanding of the law does not mean that anyone has to accept
your misinterpretations of it.
I OBJECTED, in writing, to any magistrate ruling in that case to the US
District Court itself.
*Which is why the case was remanded back to the lower courts, which is
*where you should have filed your objections.
The case was never remanded back to lower courts, fool.
Actually, according to the decision, it was. It was remanded back
with the recommendation that the decision stand, which it did. You
are the only fool here, as shown by the fact that you tried to sue a
large company WITHOUT a lawyer. As the saying goes, you had a fool as
your client.
*And by the sounds of it, you did not file when you should have and with
whom you should have.
A GOD DAMNED LIE!
My statement is a statement of fact. I am not lying about the
impression given by the court decision that was posted.
My objection was filed in accordance with the law and with the court's o=
wn
procedures and it was recorded in writing.
*Very unlikely, given this ruling.
Another lie on your part.
Since I have not lied yet, my statement of the facts cannot be another
lie. There is a court document stating your failure to file in a
timely manner and using the proper procedures. Therefore, that is
more believable than your known dishonestly.
The magistrate was
Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally blocked from any input into that=
case at all.
*No, he was not.
You are an IGNORANT LIAR!
No, that is you. I am highly knowledgeable and very honest.
It is as I told you.
However, you are a known liar and your claims contradict the court
documents, which are matters of public records. Therefore, the court
documents are more believable than your lies and distortion.
You are a anti-law, anti-justice, anti-USA fraud.
No, that is you. I am pro-law, pro-justice, pro-USA, and honest.
*He Constitutionally, lawfully, and legally was
*required to rule on any case that was presented to him, or to offer a
*valid reason why he could not.
You *ARE* an iognorant idiot.
Nope. I am a knowledgeable citizen.
The Court itself dictated that he could not involve himself in this case.
Actually, the court dictates that he has to be involved, given that he
was assigned the case to review as to whether or not to allow the
appeal. You do not get to tell the court what it can and cannot do.
*You do not understand the law nor the
*Constitution.
You ARE a FRAUD!
Nope. My statement is a statement of fact, as you demonstrate on a
regular basis.
You are agreeing with criminals.
*No, I am not agreeing with you.
You are allied with criminals.
No, I am not. I am an enemy of criminals like you. You apparently
consider law-abiding people to be criminals, and criminals to be law-
abiding people.
*I am agreeing with the justices.
*****.
You are agreeing with liars.
When did I agree with you, a known liar? As I said, I am agreeing
with the justices, who have no reason to lie.
*Therefore I am not agreeing with criminals.
Another lie on your part.
Where is the lie? I said that I am not agreeing with criminals like
you, and I am not. I am agreeing with the justices that uphold the
law.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 01:22:00 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:81293581-6ed7-44b2-875d-1a060f69ce11@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
*You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
I'm not a criminal, you idiotic anti-law fraud.
*Therefore, I am telling the truth.
Not a chance.
You are allied with frauds and their works are OBVIOUSLY criminal and false,
and the DISCLAIMERS they use are PROOF/EVIDENCE of their crimes.
None of them are exempt from the laws that render them guilty of the crimes
they committed.
You're a fraud, a hypocrite and a charlatan of criminality.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court
itself.
*Very unlikely.
Another lie.
*Only by you.
Wrong, again.
*I am telling the truth that it is highly unlikely that
*there were any lies in the court document.
*****.
It is a fact that the court lied and failed to honor the laws of the USA in
that case.
*You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
None.
*My statement is completely correct.
None, you IGNORANT fraudulent loser.
*Your lies are very blatant,
I am a the liar, you associate of INEPT IDIOTS WHO DISCLAIM THEIR OWN WORKS!
*and you are well known for telling them.
None, you wicked pro-choice pro-homosexual criminal propagandist.
*You do so in almost every post
*you make, often several times a post.
You *ARE* in error; and there is evidence to prove my statements.
"The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000)."
--------
That referral was against the terms of the law and the case.
*No, it was not.
False.
*My statement is completely true.
Your statement is false and contradictory to the law itself.
*You do not understand the law.
Another lie on your part, you fraud.
*The judge referred to the law that he was using.
False.
*My statement is completely true.
Your statement is an utter lie.
The magistrate was prohibited. by law and order, from interfering in this
case.
*The judge that is assigned this case is no interfering with it.
The magistrate, YOU IDIOT, was PROHOBITED from becoming involved in the
case.
*He is REQUIRED by law to sit on it and rule on it. You have yet to show
*that any judge interfered with your case.
It is written in black and white at the link that a magistrate interfered in
the case.
You and your associates are IDIOTS!
You are anti-law, anti-justice peons of a criminally negligent system of
thieves and lawless liars.
That is why you relyh on guns and taxes so much.
You are lazy wimpy untalented fools who are criminals.
You are anti-USA traitorous parasites who are doing nothing to fulfill the
Constitution of the USA.
You're insane and your crimes are OBVIOUS!
At no time was any magistrate permitted to rule in this case.
*Yes, they are.
Wrong, you ignorant liar.
*You are the only ignorant liar here, and you are the one that is
*wrong.
You *ARE* a FOOL!
Your education and your abilities and your talents are vastly inferior to
mine.
You are an underling to me and you will never be more than that unless you
find a way to cease your rebellion against the truth and the laws of this
nation.
My State has laws that agree with the Constituiton that attribute much guilt
to the FOOLS who committed crimes against me.
You're a beggar, a complainer and a liar.
You're a wimpy unproductive leech.
You are for stealing from the people and arming yourself via treason.
The magistrate was prohibited from interfering in that case.
*The judge that was assigned the case was not interfering with it. And
*he is required to rule on the case at some point in any case.
The 'magistrate', YOU ILLITERATE IGNORANT FOOL, was PROHIBITED from
involving himself in that case.
You are a wimpy, disobedient ignorant inept idiot.
The law and order prohibited him from being involved.
*Actually, since he was assigned this case, the law required him to be
*involved.
The 'magistrate', YOU ILLITERATE IGNORANT FOOL, was PROHIBITED FROM ANY
INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE!
[snip]
You *ARE* A rebellious disobedient shitheaded charlatan of criminals.
You're a lazy, uncompassionate idiot whose allegiance is to debt, poverty,
crime, treason of dinosaurs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 02:48:23 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:81293581-6ed7-44b2-875d-1a060f69ce11@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...=
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.=
...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
*You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
I'm not a criminal, you idiotic anti-law fraud.
You are the one with the criminal record, and you are the one that
admitted that you committed the felony that you are currently under
indictment for, so you are indeed a criminal.
And despite your delusions, I am not idiotic, anti-law, nor a fraud.
As usual, I am the opposite of your ad hominems. I am highly
intelligent, pro-law, and undeceptive.
*Therefore, I am telling the truth.
Not a chance.
Actually, there is a 100% chance that I am telling the truth, since I
am.
You are allied with frauds and their works are OBVIOUSLY criminal and fals=
e,
and the DISCLAIMERS they use are PROOF/EVIDENCE of their crimes.
What makes you think that I am allied with people like you? I am
allied with honest, law abiding people who's works are obviously legal
and work to uphold the law. The disclaimers that you refer to are not
proof of any crime, but rather limitations on the liability of the
people that write the search engine, and what they can and cannot be
sued for. It has very little to do with the facts that the search
engine returns.
None of them are exempt from the laws that render them guilty of the crime=
s
they committed.
They have no committed any crimes. Nobody has claimed that the people
you refer to are exempt from the law, yet you seem to think that
people have said such. And since they have not committed any crimes,
they cannot be rendered guilty of any crimes.
You're a fraud, a hypocrite and a charlatan of criminality.
No, that is you. You are trying unsuccessfully to deceive people with
your lying, you are a hypocrite since you expect other people to obey
the law but not you, and you are the only one that is a criminal or
supporting criminality.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court
itself.
*Very unlikely.
Another lie.
*Only by you.
Wrong, again.
Where? You are the only one that is telling lies.
*I am telling the truth that it is highly unlikely that
*there were any lies in the court document.
*****.
It is a fact that the court lied and failed to honor the laws of the USA i=
n
that case.
There is no evidence of either charge. Therefore, since you are well
known as a liar, it is more likely that you are lying and that the
court told the truth and did honor and uphold the laws of the USA in
this case.
*You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
None.
*My statement is completely correct.
None, you IGNORANT fraudulent loser.
You are describing yourself again. I am very intelligent and
knowledgeable, honest, and a winner.
*Your lies are very blatant,
I am a the liar,
For once you admit it.
you associate of INEPT IDIOTS WHO DISCLAIM THEIR OWN WORKS!
You are claiming that I am an associate of you? You are the only one
that I know of that fits that description. After all, you are inept,
and idiot, and you claim that you never attacked the police officer
even after you admitted that you did do so.
*and you are well known for telling them.
None, you wicked pro-choice pro-homosexual criminal propagandist.
You are the only one that is a wicked criminal propagandist. The fact
that I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights shows that I am certainly not
wicked at all, but rather I support the highest ideals of this
country, which include freedom, liberty, and equality.
*You do so in almost every post
*you make, often several times a post.
You *ARE* in error; and there is evidence to prove my statements.
You have not presented any evidence to support your statements, and
there is nothing that I have said that has been shown to be in error.
Your proclamations without supporting evidence are worthless.
"The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. =A7 636(b)(1)(B) (2000)."
--------
That referral was against the terms of the law and the case.
*No, it was not.
False.
*My statement is completely true.
Your statement is false and contradictory to the law itself.
Nope. You have that backwards, as usual. My statement is completely
true and supported by the law itself.
*You do not understand the law.
Another lie on your part, you fraud.
You are the only one that is being deceptive. And you have proven
many times that you do not understand the law, which means that I have
not told any lie.
*The judge referred to the law that he was using.
False.
*My statement is completely true.
Your statement is an utter lie.
Then why is the citation for the law included in the decision at the
point that he referred to it. My statement is the truth because the
court decision has the reference in there for anyone to see.
The magistrate was prohibited. by law and order, from interfering in thi=
s
case.
*The judge that is assigned this case is no interfering with it.
The magistrate, YOU IDIOT, was PROHOBITED from becoming involved in the
case.
You are the only idiot here. You cannot prohibit the courts from
doing anything. You attempted to appeal the case, which means that it
becomes subject to review by the court of appeals before they decided
whether or not to hear the case. The decision that was referenced at
the start of this thread is the decision and recommendation of the
judge that reviewed the case. He was REQUIRED to become involved in
your case because you tried to appeal the case, and he was the one
that was assigned to review it.
*He is REQUIRED by law to sit on it and rule on it. You have yet to show
*that any judge interfered with your case.
It is written in black and white at the link that a magistrate interfered =
in
the case.
Where? Your words to not matter. There is no evidence that the judge
interfered with the case. There is no law that says that a court of
appeals has to listen to every case.
You and your associates are IDIOTS!
You are claiming that I am you and that I am your associate again.
You are the only idiot here.
You are anti-law, anti-justice peons of a criminally negligent system of
thieves and lawless liars.
Wrong on all counts, as usual. I am pro-law, pro-justice highly
skilled professional that respects and understands our legal system of
honest judges and law enforcement officers that seek to end criminal
systems and organizations, as well as catch thieves and other law
breakers.
That is why you relyh on guns and taxes so much.
You are talking about your delusions again. I do not rely on guns or
taxes at all.
You are lazy wimpy untalented fools who are criminals.
I am not you, remember. Unlike you, I am hard-working, talented,
brave, and wise, and I am against criminals.
You are anti-USA traitorous parasites who are doing nothing to fulfill the=
Constitution of the USA.
Again, I am not you. I am pro-USA, hard-working, tax-paying citizen
that is doing much to help make sure that the government follows the
Constitution of the USA.
You're insane and your crimes are OBVIOUS!
Only because you are insane and delusions. Unlike you, I am very
sane, and I have not committed any crimes. However, if you REALLY
think I have committed some crimes, feel free to take your evidence to
the local police, or send it to the Allen County, Indiana Sheriff's
Department.
At no time was any magistrate permitted to rule in this case.
*Yes, they are.
Wrong, you ignorant liar.
*You are the only ignorant liar here, and you are the one that is
*wrong.
You *ARE* a FOOL!
Nope. You are the only fool here.
Your education and your abilities and your talents are vastly inferior to
mine.
Wrong on all counts, as usual. I have a Master's degree in Computer
Science from Purdue University, and I am a reasonably talented
programmer and software engineer, 11 years of professional
experience. You have refused to work for 15 years, you have never
claimed more than a Bachelor's Degree, and you have let your limited
abilities atrophy and degrade from non-use.
You are an underling to me and you will never be more than that unless you=
find a way to cease your rebellion against the truth and the laws of this
nation.
I am your superior, and I have been so for a long time. Unlike you, I
am not rebelling against the truth and the laws of this nation. And
unlike you, I understand the truth and the laws of this nation. That
is why you have a criminal record, and I have a good paying job.
My State has laws that agree with the Constituiton that attribute much gui=
lt
to the FOOLS who committed crimes against me.
That would be nobody, since nobody has committed any crimes against
you.
You're a beggar, a complainer and a liar.
No, that is you. I am reasonably well off, honest, and I only
complain about what actually needs to be fixed.
You're a wimpy unproductive leech.
That is still you. I am brave, and I work for a living, You are the
unproductive leech that is on welfare and refuses to work.
You are for stealing from the people and arming yourself via treason.
Since I am not on welfare and I pay taxes, I am not stealing from the
people. Since I do not own any firearms and I do not intend on doing
so, I am not arming myself. And since I am a patriot, I am not doing
anything via treason. Your lies are obvious, hateful, libelous, and
blatant.
The magistrate was prohibited from interfering in that case.
*The judge that was assigned the case was not interfering with it. And
*he is required to rule on the case at some point in any case.
The 'magistrate', YOU ILLITERATE IGNORANT FOOL, was PROHIBITED from
involving himself in that case.
You are the only illiterate and ignorant fool here. The judge was
required to get involved in the case since you appealed it to US
District Court. He was handed the case in order to review it, and
then to present his recommendation about whether the court should
accept the appeal, which he did. He recommended that the appeal not
be accepted, and that the case be remanded to the lower court, and
that the decision remain as ruled.
You are a wimpy, disobedient ignorant inept idiot.
That is still you. I am brave, law abiding, knowledgeable, and
intelligent highly skilled professional. Your claims are the opposite
of the truth. And there is NO requirement that anyone obey you or
your delusional commands.
The law and order prohibited him from being involved.
*Actually, since he was assigned this case, the law required him to be
*involved.
The 'magistrate', YOU ILLITERATE IGNORANT FOOL, was PROHIBITED FROM ANY
INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE!
You are the only illiterate and ignorant fool here, as you continue to
prove. The judge was required to get involved in the case because you
appealed the decision in your case. A review of your case is required
before it is accepted for appeal to the US District Court of Appeals.
The judge was handed your case for review, which he did. And he
returned did as he was required to do in that he returned a
recommendation about the case, which was a decline of your appeal.
[snip]
You *ARE* A rebellious disobedient shitheaded charlatan of criminals.
That is you, not me. I am law-abiding, patriotic, knowledgeable enemy
of criminals. There is no reason why anyone should obey you.
You're a lazy, uncompassionate idiot whose allegiance is to debt, poverty,=
crime, treason of dinosaurs.
That is you, not me. I am hard working, very compassionate,
intelligent who's allegiance is to the USA, freedom, equality, and
liberty. I am against the excessive national debt that the
Republicans keep trying to increase, the poverty that they keep
expanding on by their policies, the crimes that people like you
commit, and treason that would harm people by making war on this
country.
You should really stop lying about people so blatantly. By the way,
"treason of dinosaurs" is impossible since they have been extinct for
65 million years, and they are neither the sovereign of a country nor
a country.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 05:12:35 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:bbe6af91-d727-499d-a585-8aa8b2a90e0a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:81293581-6ed7-44b2-875d-1a060f69ce11@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
*You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
I'm not a criminal, you idiotic anti-law fraud.
*You are the one with the criminal record,
I have no criminal record(s).
I do not manufacture records against the people of the USA.
I do not publich criminal records against the people of the USA in violation
of the laws and the statutes of limitations and the Constitution itself.
*and you are the one that admitted that you committed the felony that you
are currently under
*indictment for,
Totally untrue.
You are a fraud, a liar, a reliant on DISCLAIMED information and false
witness against me and the law and the Constitution and empirical evidence.
*so you are indeed a criminal.
I am NOT a criminal.
I am not in the employ of the "CRIMINAL" justice system.
You are a fraud, a liar, a reliant on DISCLAIMED information and false
witness against me and the law and the Constitution and empirical evidence.
*And despite your delusions, I am not idiotic, anti-law, nor a fraud.
You are who is deluded.
You are an ally of fraud and crime.
*As usual, I am the opposite of your ad hominems. I am highly
*intelligent, pro-law, and undeceptive.
Very much untrue.
*Therefore, I am telling the truth.
Not a chance.
*Actually, there is a 100% chance that I am telling the truth, since I
*am.
You are illogical.
You are unskillied at debate.
You are allied with frauds and their works are OBVIOUSLY criminal and
false,
and the DISCLAIMERS they use are PROOF/EVIDENCE of their crimes.
*What makes you think that I am allied with people like you?
You have very little skill at debate.
*I am allied with honest, law abiding people who's works are obviously legal
*and work to uphold the law.
As in?
*The disclaimers that you refer to are not
*proof of any crime,
They are absolute proof that the government can not prove their productions
beyond a reasonable doubt.
They destroyed everything they did that follows the DISCLAIMER they issued.
*but rather limitations on the liability of the
*people that write the search engine,
A lie of escapist inept criminals.
*and what they can and cannot be
*sued for.
Another lie.
They are not exempt from prosecution or from liability they create via their
own errors and crimes.
*It has very little to do with the facts that the search
*engine returns.
The search engine itself is what is returning false information.
That is one of the reasons the DISCLAIMER is on their website.
Your fraudulent excuse is unsupportable in law.
None of them are exempt from the laws that render them guilty of the
crimes
they committed.
*They have no committed any crimes.
The law disagrees with your lies.
*Nobody has claimed that the people
*you refer to are exempt from the law, yet you seem to think that
*people have said such.
That is exactly what you proponents of a CRIMINAL justice system are trying
to do.
You are trying to escape prosecution via fraud and excuses that destroy your
ability to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your roevwade secrecy allegiance is why you are so fraudulent and lawless.
*And since they have not committed any crimes,
*they cannot be rendered guilty of any crimes.
You're a fraud, a hypocrite and a charlatan of criminality.
*No, that is you. You are trying unsuccessfully to deceive people with
*your lying, you are a hypocrite since you expect other people to obey
*the law but not you, and you are the only one that is a criminal or
*supporting criminality.
I'm not lying.
You are an ignorant illiterate not to comprehend the meaning of verbatim
English.
The ramifications of the Constitution and the law and the DISCLAIMER are
more than you can lie your way out of.
You're trapped.
Your criminal allegiance is kaput.
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court
itself.
*Very unlikely.
Another lie.
*Only by you.
Wrong, again.
*Where? You are the only one that is telling lies.
I am not lying.
You are an ignorant illiterate negligent type who knows too little.
*I am telling the truth that it is highly unlikely that
*there were any lies in the court document.
*****.
It is a fact that the court lied and failed to honor the laws of the USA
in
that case.
*There is no evidence of either charge.
There is evidence of their crimes.
*Therefore, since you are well known as a liar,
I am not a liar.
You are making yourself into a complete fraud by resisting me and the law
itself.
*it is more likely that you are lying and that the
*court told the truth and did honor and uphold the laws of the USA in
*this case.
You are still an ignorant, negligent deceived charlatan of criminality.
*You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
None.
*My statement is completely correct.
None, you IGNORANT fraudulent loser.
*You are describing yourself again.
Your needle is stuck.
*I am very intelligent and
*knowledgeable, honest, and a winner.
At what?
Lying against the people of the USA?
*Your lies are very blatant,
I am not a liar,
*For once you admit it.
I checked back. It was a typo.
I do not lie.
I am not an associate of the armed militant fraudulent assailants of the
criminal jusrtice system.
you associate of INEPT IDIOTS WHO DISCLAIM THEIR OWN WORKS!
*You are claiming that I am an associate of you?
What a wimpy reponse.
I didn't write a DISCLAIMER, YOU IDIOT!
The people you are allied with wrote it.
*****!!!!!!!!
PEON!
LIAR!
FRAUD!
INEPTITUDE BRAT!
*You are the only one
*that I know of that fits that description. After all, you are inept,
*and idiot, and you claim that you never attacked the police officer
*even after you admitted that you did do so.
Another statement by a freak who rebels against the law and the verbatim
words of the Constitution and the government when they admit that they can
not be trusted.
[snip]
You're a verbose moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 07:02:37 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:bbe6af91-d727-499d-a585-8aa8b2a90e0a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:81293581-6ed7-44b2-875d-1a060f69ce11@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
*You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
I'm not a criminal, you idiotic anti-law fraud.
*You are the one with the criminal record,
I have no criminal record(s).
Yes, you do. I can publish it for you if you wish.
I do not manufacture records against the people of the USA.
Nobody claimed that you did. You do not have the intelligence nor the
access to the appropriate systems to manufacture such records.
I do not publich criminal records against the people of the USA in violation
of the laws and the statutes of limitations and the Constitution itself.
Publishing criminal records is not a violation of the laws of the USA,
nor is it against the US Constitution.
*and you are the one that admitted that you committed the felony that you
are currently under
*indictment for,
Totally untrue.
My statement is completely true, and I recently proved it.
You are a fraud, a liar, a reliant on DISCLAIMED information and false
witness against me and the law and the Constitution and empirical evidence.
Wrong on all counts. You are the one that fits that description, not
me. I am honest, and I rely on facts from reputable sources to
support my statements, including your own words. I have not borne
false witness against you, nor have I lied about the law or the
Constitution. Empirical evidence supports my statements.
*so you are indeed a criminal.
I am NOT a criminal.
You have a criminal record, and you have been to jail. That makes you
a criminal. You are under indictment for a felony, and you had
admitted in this forum that you committed the acts that you are
accused of committing. Your claim not to be a criminal does not hold
water when the facts are examined.
I am not in the employ of the "CRIMINAL" justice system.
Nobody claimed that you were. Given that you are a criminal, you
cannot be employed by the police, the courts, or as a guard in the
jails and prisons.
You are a fraud, a liar, a reliant on DISCLAIMED information and false
witness against me and the law and the Constitution and empirical evidence.
Wrong on all counts, as usual. You are the fraud and the liar since
you are making claims that are patently false. It is the empirical
evidence that shows that you have a criminal record and that you are
currently under indictment. It is your own words that show that you
committed the more serious crimes against you. And the information,
except for your words, come from reliable sources. Your words only
confirm their claims. Therefore, despite your continuous lies, I have
not borne false witness against you.
*And despite your delusions, I am not idiotic, anti-law, nor a fraud.
You are who is deluded.
Not at all. You demonstrate your delusions rather continuously.
You are an ally of fraud and crime.
What makes you think that I am your ally? I am an enemy of the fraud
and the crime that you try to get away with.
*As usual, I am the opposite of your ad hominems. I am highly
*intelligent, pro-law, and undeceptive.
Very much untrue.
My statement is completely true. That is why you cannot handle it.
*Therefore, I am telling the truth.
Not a chance.
*Actually, there is a 100% chance that I am telling the truth, since I
*am.
You are illogical.
No, I am being highly logical.
You are unskillied at debate.
You do not know the first thing about debate. That is why you always
lose the debate in your first or second post, as seen by your reliance
on blatant lies and ad hominems.
Unlike you, I am reasonably skilled at debating.
You are allied with frauds and their works are OBVIOUSLY criminal and
false,
and the DISCLAIMERS they use are PROOF/EVIDENCE of their crimes.
*What makes you think that I am allied with people like you?
You have very little skill at debate.
I have far more skill at it than you. After all, all you have to use
are logical fallacies.
You also did not answer the question
*I am allied with honest, law abiding people who's works are obviously legal
*and work to uphold the law.
As in?
Judges, lawyers, police, US Marshals, the military. All the people
that you hate.
*The disclaimers that you refer to are not
*proof of any crime,
They are absolute proof that the government can not prove their productions
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually, they can prove their claims easily and well beyond a
reasonable doubt, as any intelligent and sane adult knows. All they
need to do is produce notarized copies of the documents that the on-
line information was taken from.
You simply do not and will not understand the purpose of the
disclaimers and the limits of them.
They destroyed everything they did that follows the DISCLAIMER they issued.
No, they did not. They have destroyed nothing. The disclaimer is
ONLY on the search engine, and is limited to the online documents
only. The originals are not disclaimed at all, nor is the database
that the clerks use.
*but rather limitations on the liability of the
*people that write the search engine,
A lie of escapist inept criminals.
The only one here that is lying is you. My statement is a statement
of fact that you cannot handle. The only "escapist inept criminal"
here is you.
*and what they can and cannot be
*sued for.
Another lie.
My statement is a statement of fact.
They are not exempt from prosecution or from liability they create via their
own errors and crimes.
Nobody claimed that they were. However, there are no crimes involved
in what they do, and they publish the information so that errors can
be fixed. The records that deal with you are not in error, since you
have had 10 months to fix them if they were, and the records remain
unchanged. For you to show that they are liable for any errors in
their records, you have to show that the record is actually erroneous,
and that you made reasonable attempts to get the record fixed.
*It has very little to do with the facts that the search
*engine returns.
The search engine itself is what is returning false information.
You have admitted that the information is accurate. There is no
indication that the information being returned is in error.
That is one of the reasons the DISCLAIMER is on their website.
Not at all. The fact that you wish the information was in error does
not mean that it is in error. One of the reasons for the disclaimer
is because people can mistype information. Given that the search
engine has not been shown to return false information means that it
can be reasonable trusted.
Your fraudulent excuse is unsupportable in law.
Good thing that I did not use any fraudulent excuses then. The facts
that I stated are actually supportable by the law.
None of them are exempt from the laws that render them guilty of the
crimes they committed.
*They have no committed any crimes.
The law disagrees with your lies.
We are talking about the actual law, not your delusional law. You
have NEVER shown that anyone that you claim has broken the law has
actually broken the law. You have failed to show what crimes that
they have committed. And you are the only one that is lying here.
*Nobody has claimed that the people
*you refer to are exempt from the law, yet you seem to think that
*people have said such.
That is exactly what you proponents of a CRIMINAL justice system are trying
to do.
No, it is not. Proponents of the criminal justice system are make
sure that everyone that commits a crime is tried and found guilty,
while those that have not committed a crime but are accused on one are
found not guilty.
You are trying to escape prosecution via fraud and excuses that destroy your
ability to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nobody except you is trying to escape prosecution, because you are the
only one that faces prosecution for your crimes. And unlike you, I
have proven a number of things well beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your roevwade secrecy allegiance is why you are so fraudulent and lawless.
Too bad your delusions have nothing to do with reality. There is no
such thing as a "roevwade secrecy allegiance" except in your
imagination, and I am honest and lawful. That is why you cannot show
that I have lied or broken the law.
*And since they have not committed any crimes,
*they cannot be rendered guilty of any crimes.
You're a fraud, a hypocrite and a charlatan of criminality.
*No, that is you. You are trying unsuccessfully to deceive people with
*your lying, you are a hypocrite since you expect other people to obey
*the law but not you, and you are the only one that is a criminal or
*supporting criminality.
I'm not lying.
Yes, you are.
You are an ignorant illiterate not to comprehend the meaning of verbatim
English.
No, that is you. I am very knowledgeable and highly literate, and I
can comprehend not only verbatim English, but deeper meanings in
appropriate texts.
The ramifications of the Constitution and the law and the DISCLAIMER are
more than you can lie your way out of.
You have repeatedly shown that you do not understand the Constitution,
the law, of the disclaimer on your county's website www.acpass.com.
You are the one that constantly lies about everything and everyone,
not me. I have no reason to lie at all. That is why I have been
telling the truth that you cannot handle.
You're trapped.
Not at all. You are the one that has the walls closing in on him, not
me.
Your criminal allegiance is kaput.
How can something that exists only in your imagination be kaput?
There are blatant lies in that court paper on the part of the court
itself.
*Very unlikely.
Another lie.
*Only by you.
Wrong, again.
*Where? You are the only one that is telling lies.
I am not lying.
Yes, you are. Rather constantly. In fact, you lie in your next
statement, again.
You are an ignorant illiterate negligent type who knows too little.
That would be you. I am a very knowledgeable, highly literate, hard
working type that knows far more than you, and far more than you can
imagine.
*I am telling the truth that it is highly unlikely that
*there were any lies in the court document.
*****.
It is a fact that the court lied and failed to honor the laws of the USA
in that case.
*There is no evidence of either charge.
There is evidence of their crimes.
Nobody has ever seen it. Your delusions are not evidence.
*Therefore, since you are well known as a liar,
I am not a liar.
Then why do you constantly lie, such as the lie you tell in the next
statement.
You are making yourself into a complete fraud by resisting me and the law
itself.
Actually, I am showing myself to be very honest because I am upholding
the law. Resisting you and your lies and delusions also shows that I
am honest. There is nothing illegal about resisting your hatred,
lies, and distortion. It shows that I am a better person that you.
*it is more likely that you are lying and that the
*court told the truth and did honor and uphold the laws of the USA in
*this case.
You are still an ignorant, negligent deceived charlatan of criminality.
And you are still making blatant lies that are the opposite of
reality. I am actually still very knowledgeable, hard working, clear
eyed, honest supporter of law and order.
*You are well known for your blatant lies, however.
None.
*My statement is completely correct.
None, you IGNORANT fraudulent loser.
*You are describing yourself again.
Your needle is stuck.
Not at all. You keep trying to attribute your traits to me, and I am
just reminding you that I have long since shown myself to be your
opposite, which means that when you lie about me, you are describing
yourself.
*I am very intelligent and
*knowledgeable, honest, and a winner.
At what?
I am a winner in life, and I am very knowledgeable about a variety of
subjects because I never stop trying to learn something new.
Lying against the people of the USA?
No. I leave the lying to you. I prefer to tell the truth to counter
your lies.
*Your lies are very blatant,
I am a liar,
*For once you admit it.
I checked back. It was a typo.
In that case, you changed a truthful statement to a lie, which means
that the change must be the typo. Therefore, I changed it back to the
truthful statement that you originally made.
I do not lie.
Yes, you do. Constantly and blatantly. You lies are all through your
posts.
I am not an associate of the armed militant fraudulent assailants of the
criminal jusrtice system.
Nor is anyone else, since the criminal justice system does not employ
such people. Those are the people that the criminal justice system
tries to find, try, and incarcerate.
you associate of INEPT IDIOTS WHO DISCLAIM THEIR OWN WORKS!
*You are claiming that I am an associate of you?
What a wimpy reponse.
Not at all. You seemed to claim that I was an associate of you, and I
was asking you for clarification.
I didn't write a DISCLAIMER, YOU IDIOT!
You are the only idiot here. Lawyers wrote the disclaimer, as any
intelligent person knows.
The people you are allied with wrote it.
Law abiding, intelligent, honest people wrote it. I know that. They
are the people that you hate.
*****!!!!!!!!
PEON!
LIAR!
FRAUD!
INEPTITUDE BRAT!
All those are descriptions of you. I am your opposite, remember.
That means that I am a highly skilled professional, honest, polite,
intelligent, compassionate, and caring.
*You are the only one
*that I know of that fits that description. After all, you are inept,
*and idiot, and you claim that you never attacked the police officer
*even after you admitted that you did do so.
Another statement by a freak who rebels against the law and the verbatim
words of the Constitution and the government when they admit that they can
not be trusted.
You must not be reading the same thing that everyone else is. The
person that you describe is you, since you are a freak, you hate the
Constitution and do not understand it, and you are the one that does
not trust the government in the things that it does competently.
Unlike you, I am not a freak. I understand the law and the
Constitution very well, and I obey the law. And despite your lies, I
am not rebelling against the government at all.
[snip]
You're a verbose moron.
You are the only moron here. I am a bit verbose because I prefer to
give complete explanations to counter your lies and support my
claims. That is why you are reduced to ad hominem attacks, because I
leave you with no way to support your position and try to deceive
anyone. As such, I also show that you lies near the beginning of the
post where you claim that I am unskilled at debate are in fact obvious
lies, since I show that I have a reasonable skill at it. Certainly
enough to send you packing with ease.
If you want to reverse your well deserved reputation of lying, then
stop lying in your posts. Stop your ad hominem attacks at everyone.
Start supporting your claims with real facts and documented evidence.
Start acting with some degree of respect towards others. You have a
long history of lying an hateful behavior, and it will take a long
time to reverse your reputation. Therefore, you will have to also
learn to be patient.
However, I seriously doubt that you will take my advice.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 09:01:15 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5cd3166b-fb57-4088-82d9-1a4c713da767@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:bbe6af91-d727-499d-a585-8aa8b2a90e0a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:81293581-6ed7-44b2-875d-1a060f69ce11@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. Both are true. And I agree with the judge, by
the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. You.
False, liar.
*You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
I'm not a criminal, you idiotic anti-law fraud.
*You are the one with the criminal record,
I have no criminal record(s).
Yes, you do.
*****.
I can publish it for you if you wish.
No, you can't.
You do not have permission to publish anything of mine.
Consult copyright law.
Also, you are still barking like an insane criminal fraud; because, those
records are records that were manufactured and which are maintained by a
self-professed CRIMINAL system which DISCLAIMS its own works.
You are a disqualified outside agency illiterate criminal peon that seeks to
lie and propagandize the USA because you, in reality, hate the USA and its
laws.
You are an anti-liberty loon who sows discontent against the people who are
taxed.
You're an idiot.
But, since you attribute full ownership rights to me; it would be against
the law for anyone to possess those records without my consent.
You ARE stupid.
You're an insane roevwadeist loser pro-gay IDIOT!
I do not manufacture records against the people of the USA.
Nobody claimed that you did.
Which should tell you that it ISN'T me that is an enemy of the USA.
You do not have the intelligence nor the access to the appropriate systems
to manufacture such records.
I have more intelligence than those who put that DISCLAIMED MILITARISTIC
CRIMINAL ***** on there.
And, the 14th Amendment shoots your HYPOCRISY down.
You are allied with treason.
I do not publish criminal records against the people of the USA in
violation
of the laws and the statutes of limitations and the Constitution itself.
Publishing criminal records is not a violation of the laws of the USA,
nor is it against the US Constitution.
*****.
You are without merit in that statement.
There are egregious violations of the peoples' Constitutional rights
contained in those records.
You are a charlatan of criminals.
*and you are the one that admitted that you committed the felony that you
are currently under
*indictment for,
Totally untrue.
My statement is completely true,
Your statement is a lie by a fraudulent ally of treason.
and I recently proved it.
How did you prove your lie?
You are a fraud, a liar, a reliant on DISCLAIMED information and false
witness against me and the law and the Constitution and empirical
evidence.
Wrong on all counts.
None at all, you anti-truth, anti-law, anti-USA idiot.
You are the one that fits that description, not
me.
You are a wimp.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
04 Feb 2008 10:52:24 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 10:01=A0pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5cd3166b-fb57-4088-82d9-1a4c713da767@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:bbe6af91-d727-499d-a585-8aa8b2a90e0a@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com..=
..
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:81293581-6ed7-44b2-875d-1a060f69ce11@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
....
On Feb 4, 1:18 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:=
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:5e1a5af0-840a-402b-972e-9c3e388e233e@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.c=
om...
On Feb 3, 1:25 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrot=
e:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:42a79bad-3236-4295-a65f-dd6745710b88@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups=
..com...
On Feb 3, 2:17 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022299.U.pdf
Seems John D. is used to losing in court.
I guess in this case John D's lawyer had a fool for a client.
Or did the Client have a fool acting as his lawyer?
--
Ak'toh'di
*Take your pick. =A0Both are true. =A0And I agree with the judge,=
by
the
*way.
You agree with criminals then.
*No, I am disagreeing with criminals. =A0You.
False, liar.
*You are the only criminal here, and I am disagreeing with you.
I'm not a criminal, you idiotic anti-law fraud.
*You are the one with the criminal record,
I have no criminal record(s).
Yes, you do.
*****.
Not at all.
I can publish it for you if you wish.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
http://www.andersoncountysc.org/web/scjdweb/publicindex/PISearch.aspx?CourtT=
ype=3DG
Name Party Type Case Number Filed Date Case Status Disp Date Case
Type
Wentzky, John Defendant 79265AH 07/09/1996 Pled Guilty
10/13/1997 Criminal-Clerk
Wentzky, John D Defendant J410220 01/12/2007 Pending
Criminal-Clerk
Wentzky, John D Defendant J410221 01/12/2007 Pending
Criminal-Clerk
Wentzky, John D Defendant J410222 01/12/2007 Pending
Criminal-Clerk
This, of course, is not your complete criminal record, but it is
enough.
You do not have permission to publish anything of mine.
I do not need your permission to distribute public records that
concern you.
Consult copyright law.
I have. I know it far better than you do. I do not need your
permission for Fair Use of your works, and I do not need your
permission to publish public records about you.
Also, you are still barking like an insane criminal fraud;
No, that is you. I am writing like a sane, honest, law abiding
citizen.
because, those
records are records that were manufactured and which are maintained by a
self-professed CRIMINAL system which DISCLAIMS its own works.
No, they were not. They were recorded by the justice system to record
the acts and depositions of your criminal cases, and they do not
disclaim their records.
I do not know of any criminal system that I could access that has your
name attached to it in any way. But then, I do not go looking for
systems that are illegal.
You are a disqualified outside agency illiterate criminal peon that seeks =
to
lie and propagandize the USA because you, in reality, hate the USA and its=
laws.
Wrong on all counts as usual. I am a qualified independent agent that
is highly literate, law abiding, a highly skilled professional that
seeks to reveal the truth to counter your lies because in reality I
support the USA and its laws.
You are an anti-liberty loon who sows discontent against the people who ar=
e
taxed.
Again, you are talking about yourself. I am a pro-liberty citizen
that is among the taxed. Unlike you, I have no reason to sow
discontent, and I certainly would not do so against the people of the
USA.
You're an idiot.
That is still you, as you insist on proving.
But, since you attribute full ownership rights to me;
Actually, I do no such thing. You simply have trouble comprehending
English. You cannot comprehend that records that are about you are
commonly referred to as your records. That does not mean that you
have any ownership rights over them.
it would be against
the law for anyone to possess those records without my consent.
Your consent is not needed since public records belong to the people
as a whole. You do not have the right to suppress them or hide them.
You do not have any exclusive rights to them, and you certainly do not
have the right to modify them at your leisure.
You ARE stupid.
No, that is you, as you continue to prove.
You're an insane roevwadeist loser pro-gay IDIOT!
You are the only insane loser idiot. The fact that I am pro-choice
and pro-gay rights shows that I am a winner, very sane, and
intelligent.
I do not manufacture records against the people of the USA.
Nobody claimed that you did.
Which should tell you that it ISN'T me that is an enemy of the USA.
You are the one that seem to be against the USA. You dislike the
laws, the justice system, the fact that you are not immune to
prosecution for breaking the law, and the fact that you cannot silence
other people and make them obey you.
I certainly am not an enemy of the USA, no matter what your delusions
are.
You do not have the intelligence nor the access to the appropriate syste=
ms
to manufacture such records.
I have more intelligence than those who put that DISCLAIMED MILITARISTIC
CRIMINAL ***** on there.
That would be nobody. That means that you have more intelligence than
nobody, which means that you are the least intelligent person there.
And, the 14th Amendment shoots your HYPOCRISY down.
I have no hypocrisy to shoot down. You simply do not understand the
14th Amendment.
You are allied with treason.
Why do you think that being allied with the USA, and the ideals of
truth, justice, freedom, liberty, and equality are treason?
I do not publish criminal records against the people of the USA in
violation
of the laws and the statutes of limitations and the Constitution itself=
..
Publishing criminal records is not a violation of the laws of the USA,
nor is it against the US Constitution.
*****.
You are without merit in that statement.
My statement is the truth, and completely with merit.
There are egregious violations of the peoples' Constitutional rights
contained in those records.
Where? There is no evidence of any Constitutional violations.
You are a charlatan of criminals.
I am not a charlatan of people like you. I support honest and law
abiding people rather than criminals like you.
*and you are the one that admitted that you committed the felony that y=
ou
are currently under
*indictment for,
Totally untrue.
My statement is completely true,
Your statement is a lie by a fraudulent ally of treason.
Nope, since my statement is the truth, and I am honest and a patriot.
But for some reason, you seem to consider the truth to be lies, lies
to be the truth, and people that support their countries to be
treasonous. That is why you are considered delusional and a liar.
and I recently proved it.
How did you prove your lie?
One cannot prove a lie, which is why you cannot support your lies and
your libelous claims.
However, I proves that I told the truth by citing with a link the post
where you originally admitted that you attacked a cop, as well as
proving the quote of your claim. Assaulting a police officer is a
felony in your state, which means that you admitted that you had
committed a felony.
You are a fraud, a liar, a reliant on DISCLAIMED information and false
witness against me and the law and the Constitution and empirical
evidence.
Wrong on all counts.
None at all, you anti-truth, anti-law, anti-USA idiot.
My statement is correct, and you are still wrong on all counts about
me. I a pro-truth, which is why I provide the truth and the facts to
counter your copious lies. I am also pro-law, pro-USA, and highly
intelligent.
You are the one that fits that description, not
me.
You are a wimp.
That still fits you rather than me. Unlike you, I am a brave person.
[snip]
Could not stand facing more of the truth, I see.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
05 Feb 2008 12:24:18 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:801af317-f539-4db5-a18f-4c309a2e5e4d@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I do not need your permission to distribute public records that
concern you.
You *ARE* a criminal IDIOT!
You have NO lawful right to publish any public record that pertains to me
WHATSOEVER!
The records you published are slanderous and LIBELOUS to me and they are
DISCLAIMED by their publisher.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: John D's past failures. |
05 Feb 2008 08:22:09 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 1:24 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
