| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Chief Instigator" |
| Date: |
04 May 2007 10:26:21 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Constitutional requirements. |
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."
The witnesses will be the police officers involved in your incident that's
going to make you stand trial.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 10:48:55 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslacwqxu.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."
The witnesses will be the police officers involved in your incident that's
going to make you stand trial.
Listen, you anti-Constitutional loon,
"to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."
means what it says, you peon whose criminal platform is based on ignorance.
That means that any cops who testify as witnesses are entitled to witness in
MY FAVOR, you idiot.
See how your entire agenda is going to be destroyed by one person who you
thought you could wrong and get away with it?
LOL!
I am winning, and I am going to be so victorious that you will be required
to pay according to the mandates I issue.
That much is a certainty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 04:03:28 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslacwqxu.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."
The witnesses will be the police officers involved in your incident that's
going to make you stand trial.
Listen, you anti-Constitutional loon,
Quit talking to yourself in public.
"to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."
means what it says, you peon whose criminal platform is based on ignorance.
That means that any cops who testify as witnesses are entitled to witness in
MY FAVOR, you idiot.
Being entitled to doesn't mean they have to testify in your favor, Convicted
Criminal Wentzky.
See how your entire agenda is going to be destroyed by one person who you
thought you could wrong and get away with it?
LOL!
I see why you're going to be spending quite a bit of the rest of your life in
prison.
I am winning, and I am going to be so victorious that you will be required
to pay according to the mandates I issue.
That much is a certainty.
Your removal from society is going to be a more likely certainty. Enjoy your
fantasy while you can.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 12:04:14 PM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslacwqxu.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."
The witnesses will be the police officers involved in your incident that's
going to make you stand trial.
Listen, you anti-Constitutional loon,
"to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."
means what it says, you peon whose criminal platform is based on ignorance.
That means that any cops who testify as witnesses are entitled to witness in
MY FAVOR, you idiot.
Entitled to testify in your favor, of course. Not required to testify
in your favor.
They will tell the truth. You will (most likely) go to prison.
Again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 12:20:09 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463b678e$0$14120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslacwqxu.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."
The witnesses will be the police officers involved in your incident
that's
going to make you stand trial.
Listen, you anti-Constitutional loon,
"to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."
means what it says, you peon whose criminal platform is based on
ignorance.
That means that any cops who testify as witnesses are entitled to witness
in
MY FAVOR, you idiot.
Entitled to testify in your favor, of course.
Thank you for admitting that.
Not required to testify
in your favor.
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can be
a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal liability and
potential perjury charges in a court of law.
They will tell the truth.
If they tell the truth, they do not stand much of a chance of garnering a
guilty verdict against me to protect the lone accuser who wrote up all the
false charges against me.
See their dilemma?
They are in the position of becoming guilty of aiding and abetting someone
who assaulted me and who wrote up false charges on me if they testify
against me, and they are in the position of beaing able to escape liability
by testifying in my favor.
The entire thing is a case, at this point, of attempted protection of a
government employee who assaulted me and wrote up false charges against me
(a citizen and resident of Anderson County for 45 years), a member of the
public that their job duties dicate that they are supposed to protect.
I am not as dead set against many of them as you may think.
There is only one officer who wrote up any charges against me.
You will (most likely) go to prison.
I really stand no chance of me going to prison in this case.
The laws are designed to protect me.
Again.
Your idea that malicious prosecution attempts designed to protect criminals
is quite out of line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jl" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 04:32:06 PM |
|
|
Wentzkie, is this what you're whining about?:::
John Darin Wentzky, 45, 125 Wentzky Circle, Anderson, driving under
the influence, resisting arrest, assault on police
Go ahead and cop a plea, get it over with, accept personal
responsibility. WTH is wrong with you? You whiny little wimp.
BTW, what was your blood/alcohol reading, .25?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 10:54:22 PM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463b678e$0$14120$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslacwqxu.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."
The witnesses will be the police officers involved in your incident
that's
going to make you stand trial.
Listen, you anti-Constitutional loon,
"to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."
means what it says, you peon whose criminal platform is based on
ignorance.
That means that any cops who testify as witnesses are entitled to witness
in
MY FAVOR, you idiot.
Entitled to testify in your favor, of course.
Thank you for admitting that.
Not required to testify
in your favor.
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can be
a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal liability and
potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
They will tell the truth.
If they tell the truth, they do not stand much of a chance of garnering a
guilty verdict against me to protect the lone accuser who wrote up all the
false charges against me.
But you're a stupid liar, and you have no credibility, and their
testimony counts for far more than does yours.
See their dilemma?
Nope.
[...]
You will (most likely) go to prison.
I really stand no chance of me going to prison in this case.
You _are_ an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 10:58:29 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can
be
a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal liability
and
potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 12:06:16 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can
be a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal liability
and potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. (You can confess. That's a
distinction you might want to actually understand.) Not that it will likely
matter, though - if the police video is anything like what I think it is, the
jury will not be deliberating very long before they come back with a unanimous
verdict - either guilty as charged, or not guilty by reason of insanity, with
your confinement in a state hospital.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 10:45:40 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1whvzwon.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me
can
be a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal
liability
and potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. (You can confess.
That's a
distinction you might want to actually understand.) Not that it will
likely
matter, though - if the police video is anything like what I think it is,
the
jury will not be deliberating very long before they come back with a
unanimous
verdict - either guilty as charged, or not guilty by reason of insanity,
with
your confinement in a state hospital.
Coercion/intimidation tactics are illegal in any effort to obtain a
confession from me.
I *AM* not guilty.
So, any more pressure from anyone that shows them to think that a conspired
and criminally corrupt governmental control agenda that goes against me will
garner a convection or any deprivation of my liberty or my property or my
father's property or any of our Constitutional rights in the United States
of America is somehow legal in the USA will efficaciously be rejected by the
law of the land.
There is no victory for the illicit control freaks in this case; and, there
is much restitution that MUST BE MADE to me and to my father.
I will NOT tolerate criminal acts against me by a band of persons who were
deceived into acting against me either by themselves or by any person or
persons who reside inside or outside the jurisdiction of Anderson, SC.
Your refusal to admit that I am NOT a threat and to deny that those who
committed crimes against me are guilty of the crimes they committed against
me is more reason for me not to deem you as a just inhabitant of the USA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 12:43:09 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1whvzwon.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can
be a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal
liability and potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. (You can confess. That's
a distinction you might want to actually understand.) Not that it will
likely matter, though - if the police video is anything like what I think
it is, the jury will not be deliberating very long before they come back
with a unanimous verdict - either guilty as charged, or not guilty by
reason of insanity, with your confinement in a state hospital.
Coercion/intimidation tactics are illegal in any effort to obtain a
confession from me.
Idiot. You still can't understand what you bother to read. I'm not
intimidating anyone who's sane enough to know what I'm saying. I'm pointing
out the situation that you got yourself mired in by your own amazingly stupid
decisions.
I *AM* not guilty.
The court will make the final decision on that.
So, any more pressure from anyone that shows them to think that a conspired
and criminally corrupt governmental control agenda that goes against me will
garner a convection or any deprivation of my liberty or my property or my
father's property or any of our Constitutional rights in the United States
of America is somehow legal in the USA will efficaciously be rejected by the
law of the land.
Only in the delusion you live in 24/7.
There is no victory for the illicit control freaks in this case; and, there
is much restitution that MUST BE MADE to me and to my father.
Your father isn't on trial. You will be. You aren't owed anything beyond
your basic rights - and you're too crazy to even get near to understanding
those. (IMO, of course.)
I will NOT tolerate criminal acts against me by a band of persons who were
deceived into acting against me either by themselves or by any person or
persons who reside inside or outside the jurisdiction of Anderson, SC.
Your refusal to admit that I am NOT a threat and to deny that those who
committed crimes against me are guilty of the crimes they committed against
me is more reason for me not to deem you as a just inhabitant of the USA.
Ask me if I give a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what you believe about
me, Convicted (and Future Convict) Criminal Wentzky. The county court is what
you should be worried about.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 01:40:58 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodkzqi8i.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1whvzwon.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me
can
be a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal
liability and potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. (You can confess.
That's
a distinction you might want to actually understand.) Not that it will
likely matter, though - if the police video is anything like what I
think
it is, the jury will not be deliberating very long before they come back
with a unanimous verdict - either guilty as charged, or not guilty by
reason of insanity, with your confinement in a state hospital.
Coercion/intimidation tactics are illegal in any effort to obtain a
confession from me.
Idiot. You still can't understand what you bother to read. I'm not
intimidating anyone who's sane enough to know what I'm saying. I'm
pointing
out the situation that you got yourself mired in by your own amazingly
stupid
decisions.
What stupid decisions ***** bitchwad idiot?
The only idiot in this case is the cop who committed fraud against me after
he assaulted me in public and illegally detained me.
I *AM* not guilty.
The court will make the final decision on that.
The court has no authority above "the people".
If you understood the constitution properly you would undertand that bit of
information.
The court is NOT a person.
The court has no real rights, according to the Constitution itself.
The court is merely a venue to settle disputes.
Your gangster criminal state control beliefs are illegal.
So, any more pressure from anyone that shows them to think that a
conspired
and criminally corrupt governmental control agenda that goes against me
will
garner a convection or any deprivation of my liberty or my property or my
father's property or any of our Constitutional rights in the United States
of America is somehow legal in the USA will efficaciously be rejected by
the
law of the land.
Only in the delusion you live in 24/7.
There is no victory for the illicit control freaks in this case; and,
there
is much restitution that MUST BE MADE to me and to my father.
Your father isn't on trial.
Listen, you freakboy.
My father had to pay money to these criminals who committed crimes against
me already.
They owe him and me money.
That is the law, you bitchwad.
You will be.
Nah, idiot.
*YOU* and all persons who aid the criminals in government are on trial now.
You aren't owed anything beyond your basic rights - and you're too crazy
to even get near to understanding
those. (IMO, of course.)
I already HAVE my rights, and that is every right according to every law in
this nation.
My rights have been trangressed and I am owed restitution.
I will NOT tolerate criminal acts against me by a band of persons who were
deceived into acting against me either by themselves or by any person or
persons who reside inside or outside the jurisdiction of Anderson, SC.
Your refusal to admit that I am NOT a threat and to deny that those who
committed crimes against me are guilty of the crimes they committed
against
me is more reason for me not to deem you as a just inhabitant of the USA.
Ask me if I give a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what you believe
about
me, Convicted (and Future Convict) Criminal Wentzky.
Do you give a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what I believe about you?
The county court is what
you should be worried about.
People like me don't worry about the County COurt, you idiot, because the
County Court is here to support me after any person or persons commit(s)
crime(s) against me
Read the law and abide by it, you idiot, while you may have a chance at a
reduced sentence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 02:27:01 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodkzqi8i.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk1whvzwon.fsf@eris.io.com...
[...]
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. (You can confess.
That's a distinction you might want to actually understand.) Not that it
will likely matter, though - if the police video is anything like what I
think it is, the jury will not be deliberating very long before they come
back with a unanimous verdict - either guilty as charged, or not guilty
by reason of insanity, with your confinement in a state hospital.
Coercion/intimidation tactics are illegal in any effort to obtain a
confession from me.
Idiot. You still can't understand what you bother to read. I'm not
intimidating anyone who's sane enough to know what I'm saying. I'm
pointing out the situation that you got yourself mired in by your own
amazingly stupid decisions.
What stupid decisions ***** bitchwad idiot?
Your choice to expose yourself in public, a decade ago; your choice to drive
in such a manner as to give a police officer probable cause to pull you over
for suspicion of DUI, your choice to resist arrest, and your choice to assault
the officer who was in the performance of his duties. You made those choices,
and now you're going to be held accountable for every one of them.
The only idiot in this case is the cop who committed fraud against me after
he assaulted me in public and illegally detained me.
....except that he did nothing illegal, and South Carolina law supports him.
I *AM* not guilty.
The court will make the final decision on that.
The court has no authority above "the people".
It will definitely have authority over John Darin Wentzky.
If you understood the constitution properly you would undertand that bit of
information. The court is NOT a person. The court has no real rights,
according to the Constitution itself. The court is merely a venue to settle
disputes.
....and punish lawbreakers like yourself.
Your gangster criminal state control beliefs are illegal.
So demand that the court charge me with "illegal belief" and see how much more
time that gets you for contempt of court.
[...]
There is no victory for the illicit control freaks in this case; and,
there
is much restitution that MUST BE MADE to me and to my father.
Your father isn't on trial.
Listen, you freakboy. My father had to pay money to these criminals who
committed crimes against me already. They owe him and me money. That is the
law, you bitchwad.
Your law can be safely ignored.
You will be.
Nah, idiot. *YOU* and all persons who aid the criminals in government are on
trial now.
In other words, you're going to be a judge in prison.
You aren't owed anything beyond your basic rights - and you're too crazy
to even get near to understanding
those. (IMO, of course.)
I already HAVE my rights, and that is every right according to every law in
this nation. My rights have been trangressed and I am owed restitution.
Right now, you're owed nothing but a swift boot to the head, and possibly a
long stay in a hospital until it can be determined if you can ever be made a
rational citizen - and if not, you'll be spending the rest of your life at a
state-run funny farm. (Give my regards to Susan Smith if that happens.)
I will NOT tolerate criminal acts against me by a band of persons who were
deceived into acting against me either by themselves or by any person or
persons who reside inside or outside the jurisdiction of Anderson, SC.
Your refusal to admit that I am NOT a threat and to deny that those who
committed crimes against me are guilty of the crimes they committed
against
me is more reason for me not to deem you as a just inhabitant of the USA.
Ask me if I give a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what you believe about
me, Convicted (and Future Convict) Criminal Wentzky.
Do you give a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what I believe about you?
No. Shut up and sit down.
The county court is what you should be worried about.
People like me don't worry about the County COurt, you idiot, because the
County Court is here to support me after any person or persons commit(s)
crime(s) against me Read the law and abide by it, you idiot, while you may
have a chance at a reduced sentence.
I have a 100% chance at no sentence at all, since I'm not subject to your
fantasy.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 11:46:21 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkbqgzoyuy.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
If you understood the constitution properly you would undertand that bit
of
information. The court is NOT a person. The court has no real rights,
according to the Constitution itself. The court is merely a venue to
settle
disputes.
Your gangster criminal state control beliefs are illegal.
So demand that the court charge me with "illegal belief" and see how much
more
time that gets you for contempt of court.
Contempt of court on usenet?
LOL!
Your idiocy is what people see here.
Listen, you freakboy. My father had to pay money to these criminals who
committed crimes against me already. They owe him and me money. That is
the
law, you bitchwad.
Nah, idiot. *YOU* and all persons who aid the criminals in government are
on
trial now.
I already HAVE my rights, and that is every right according to every law
in
this nation. My rights have been trangressed and I am owed restitution.
Do you give a flying ***** at a rolling doughnut what I believe about you?
People like me don't worry about the County Court, you idiot, because the
County Court is here to support me after any person or persons commit(s)
crime(s) against me Read the law and abide by it, you idiot, while you may
have a chance at a reduced sentence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 12:20:27 PM |
|
|
On May 5, 11:45 am, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote in messagenews:szk1whvzwon.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me
can
be a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal
liability
and potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. (You can confess.
That's a
distinction you might want to actually understand.) Not that it will
likely
matter, though - if the police video is anything like what I think it is,
the
jury will not be deliberating very long before they come back with a
unanimous
verdict - either guilty as charged, or not guilty by reason of insanity,
with
your confinement in a state hospital.
Coercion/intimidation tactics are illegal in any effort to obtain a
confession from me.
None were needed. You confessed without any prompting from anyone.
I *AM* not guilty.
Your own description of your actions show that you are guilty. Your
opinion of your guilty or innocence does not relieve you of the guilt
from obviously breaking the law.
So, any more pressure from anyone that shows them to think that a conspired
and criminally corrupt governmental control agenda that goes against me
No such thing exists except in your fevered imagination.
will
garner a convection or any deprivation of my liberty or my property or my
father's property or any of our Constitutional rights in the United States
of America is somehow legal in the USA will efficaciously be rejected by the
law of the land.
You, however, do not get to determine what they law of the land says
or does not say. And you have repeatedly shown that you do not
understand it anyway.
And it is your own actions in assaulting a cop on duty that will
deprive you of your liberty and property, as well as reduce your
Constitutional rights. For example, a convicted felon cannot vote.
There is no victory for the illicit control freaks in this case;
That means that you will lose, since you are the only control freak
present in this thread, legal or illegal.
and, there
is much restitution that MUST BE MADE to me and to my father.
There is no restitution that needs to be made to you or your father.
I will NOT tolerate criminal acts against me by a band of persons who were
deceived into acting against me either by themselves or by any person or
persons who reside inside or outside the jurisdiction of Anderson, SC.
No criminal acts have been made against you. Therefore, you have
nothing to tolerate.
Your refusal to admit that I am NOT a threat
Why should me admit to something that is not true?
and to deny that those who
committed crimes against me are guilty of the crimes they committed against
me
Nobody has actually committed any crimes against you.
is more reason for me not to deem you as a just inhabitant of the USA.
You, however, have no say in the matter. You have no idea what a
"just inhabitant" is, and you do not get to define who is just and who
isn't.
Your delusions and opinions do not change the facts, nor do they
really matter to anyone else.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
06 May 2007 11:52:07 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ekkr331m5ma9ai7g25boo5fsusdj72r1i5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:42:54 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1178423939.478152.297950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 1:48 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Confessed what?
Assaulting a police officer while in the performance of his duties,
and resisting arrest.
Another lie by you.
You are unable to show any confession on my part of either of those acts,
and it is because I neither confessed to nor did I commit either of those
acts that you are falsey accusing me of.
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Message-ID: <GFWNh.210$78.24@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back......
Why did you go MISQUOTING ME?
He didn't misquote you, because YOU POSTED IT. Anyone can go to that
message-ID and see for themselves. (Google isn't your friend, in this case.)
Why didn't you quote me verbatim about how I had to defense myself against a
disrespecftul loser cop, YOU FOOL!
He did. You're too psychotic to notice such bothersome details.
You confessed.
Never happened, you IDIOT!
It's already happened, and you pled guilty to another charge ten years ago.
Keep on stacking that record up, Future Convict!
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
07 May 2007 06:38:37 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3b299qx4.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ekkr331m5ma9ai7g25boo5fsusdj72r1i5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:42:54 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1178423939.478152.297950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 1:48 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Confessed what?
Assaulting a police officer while in the performance of his duties,
and resisting arrest.
Another lie by you.
You are unable to show any confession on my part of either of those
acts,
and it is because I neither confessed to nor did I commit either of
those
acts that you are falsey accusing me of.
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Message-ID: <GFWNh.210$78.24@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back......
Why did you go MISQUOTING ME?
He didn't misquote you,
Stop lying, you liar.
because YOU POSTED IT.
He misquoted me, you fool.
Anyone can go to that message-ID and see for themselves.
That he misquoted me, you IDIOT!
(Google isn't your friend, in this case.)
*****, you god damned false witness.
Why didn't you quote me verbatim about how I had to defense myself against
a
disrespecftul loser cop, YOU FOOL!
He did.
He didn;t quote me verbatim in full, you god damned liar.
You're too psychotic to notice such bothersome details.
You are a god damned liar.
You confessed.
Never happened, you IDIOT!
It's already happened,
It nebver happened, you idiot.
and you pled guilty to another charge ten years ago.
Another lie, you god damned idiot.
Keep on stacking that record up, Future Convict!
You will regret that you contested me even once.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
07 May 2007 07:41:14 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk3b299qx4.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ekkr331m5ma9ai7g25boo5fsusdj72r1i5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:42:54 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1178423939.478152.297950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 1:48 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Confessed what?
Assaulting a police officer while in the performance of his duties,
and resisting arrest.
Another lie by you. You are unable to show any confession on my part of
either of those acts, and it is because I neither confessed to nor did I
commit either of those acts that you are falsey accusing me of.
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Message-ID: <GFWNh.210$78.24@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back......
Why did you go MISQUOTING ME?
He didn't misquote you,
Stop lying, you liar.
You posted it. Quit whining because you're too stupid to know what you're
doing to your case.
because YOU POSTED IT.
He misquoted me, you fool.
Anyone can plug that Message-ID into Google and see for themselves that you
were quoted correctly.
Anyone can go to that message-ID and see for themselves.
That he misquoted me, you IDIOT!
Why are you so intent on forcing the county court to make you one of their
wards?
(Google isn't your friend, in this case.)
*****, you god damned false witness.
Famous last words of yours? ;-)
Why didn't you quote me verbatim about how I had to defense myself against
a disrespecftul loser cop, YOU FOOL!
He did.
He didn;t quote me verbatim in full, you god damned liar.
That makes no difference, in your case. You provided a clear confession of
assaulting a police officer. As always, your fat mouth is going to talk you
into jail, at a minimum.
You're too psychotic to notice such bothersome details.
You are a god damned liar.
Prove it.
You confessed.
Never happened, you IDIOT!
It's already happened,
It nebver happened, you idiot.
Enjoy your divorce from reality.
and you pled guilty to another charge ten years ago.
Another lie, you god damned idiot.
Be sure and tell the county court clerk that. That'll make his or her day.
Keep on stacking that record up, Future Convict!
You will regret that you contested me even once.
Why? You're the mental wreck who's trying to nail himself to a cross. You're
Anderson's one-man freak show. (IMO, as always.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
06 May 2007 11:24:32 AM |
|
|
(Convict's trolling of Nazi newsgroups repaired)
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkslaaknhc.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Tom S" <tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ekkr331m5ma9ai7g25boo5fsusdj72r1i5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:42:54 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1178423939.478152.297950@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 1:48 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:
Confessed what?
Assaulting a police officer while in the performance of his duties,
and resisting arrest.
Another lie by you. You are unable to show any confession on my part of
either of those acts, and it is because I neither confessed to nor did I
commit either of those acts that you are falsey accusing me of.
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Message-ID: <GFWNh.210$78.24@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back......
Why did you go MISQUOTING ME?
He didn't.
He sure did.
He quoted me out of context, you liar.
He ommitted the self-defense mandate in my statement.
I posted the full article, numbnuts. Quit whining and try to cobble together
an actual defense for your latest insanity.
You posted that just about six weeks ago:
Is that what you sent to the solicitor who can see the cop attacking me from
behind after he threatened force upon me with a weapon before I defended
myself?
No. (Not yet, anyway.)
Your control by force ***** criminal performance is subject to the law
and to the punishments the law requires against it.
....which only exist in what's left of your imagination.
Now, will you be a man or a mouse and say something to the effect of, "You
can ask the Solicitor what I communicated to her."
You haven't already? (Of course, she's under no obligation to tell you, until
such time as your trial starts.)
Will you continue to hide and cower in your secrecy that shows you to be so
lacing in integriy and fail to admit what you communicated to her?
It's none of your business. (Annoying her is one of the more idiotic things
you could do, and it won't make your life any better...far from it, in fact.)
Thanks for continuing to nail yourself to a cross, Johnnifer. (Too bad no
one's worshiping you, for obvious reasons.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
06 May 2007 12:11:40 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szk6475ly2n.fsf@eris.io.com...
(Convict's trolling of Nazi newsgroups repaired)
Paranoid criminal entrpament freak Humphrey's cowardice and atheism exposed.
Idiot Wentzky's paranoia and insanity on display, as usual.
Look at all the newsgroups that say nothing about nazi, you fool.
You don't understand anything of what you read.
Why did you run and cower in the atheism group you added?
LOL!
I didn't, and I've been a particpant in that newsgroup since quite a bit
before you went on your latest spree.
You are doomed. Defeated.
Quit talking to yourself. (Normal people already have you figured out.)
You are a loser.
You know it, and it shows.
Look at your lies.
I am not a convict.
You pled guilty to a charge of indecent exposure in 1997. You're a convicted
criminal. Live with it.
And, for all you readers in the alt.altheism newsgroup, can't you notice
PLH's attempt to deceive you by lying about me?
Best to resist people such as PLH and put him away where he can't cause you
any trouble.
Too bad that they won't respect you any more than any of the other newsgroups
you try to recruit from.
[...]
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Message-ID: <GFWNh.210$78.24@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back......
Why did you go MISQUOTING ME?
He didn't.
He sure did.
He quoted me out of context, you liar.
He ommitted the self-defense mandate in my statement.
I posted the full article, numbnuts.
I saw the post that had the full text of my perfectly legal statement which
does nothing to say that I assulted any cop, you fool.
Keep ensuring that you're going to be sent away for a long time. Anyone sane
can read the article and conclude you're insane.
Quit whining and try to cobble together
an actual defense for your latest insanity.
He quoted me out of context, you idiot.
Your lies are causing you hram.
*****. I posted the whole article, so your idiocy is evident.
He ommitted the self-defense mandate in my statement.
The lack of sanity was evidenced by the cop who attacked me, you fool.
So why did you basically confess to assaulting him? (The Solicitor might well
be interested in *that* detail.)
You posted that just about six weeks ago:
Is that what you sent to the solicitor who can see the cop attacking me
from behind after he threatened force upon me with a weapon before I
defended myself?
No. (Not yet, anyway.)
Your control by force ***** criminal performance is subject to the law
and to the punishments the law requires against it.
...which only exist in what's left of your imagination.
Another denial is more reason to attribute your comment as a lie. Your
incessant comments about a boot to the head gave you away a long time ago.
You have no defense.
I'm not the one who will be on trial. That's your distinction.
Your character tells everyone your real criminal charade.
I still don't care about the voices in what's left of your head.
ALl you seem to do si hidfe and cower behind a keyboard in an effort to
deceive people into attacking innocent members of the public.
They will find out that you lied to them and deceived you and they will come
hunting you down like the manson-freak you are.
Your conspiring against the people of the USA is your problem.
Your delusions are what will remove you from society. (Make it soon.)
Now, will you be a man or a mouse and say something to the effect of, "You
can ask the Solicitor what I communicated to her."
You haven't already?
Why would I?
I do NOT live in fear of idiots such as yourself or anyone else.
What makes you think I am obligated by law to contact her at all?
I contacted that office a long time ago, and they are still regarded as
negigent in the eyes of the law.
They failed, and they are still negligent with regard to their legal
obligations.
They'll nail you to the wall, anyway. They're in the business of enforcing
the law, which you violated. Shut up and deal with it.
(Of course, she's under no obligation to tell you, until
such time as your trial starts.)
Not so, you false witness.
She is obligated to tell me everything since I already requested the
information.
Really? Try making that demand of her and see how much more time you get as a
result.
She is BOUND to the compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in my favor,
YOU IDIOT, and that requires her to turn over everything they are holding
that they plan to use against me so that I muy constitutional right to
obtain witnesses in my favor is honoered.
Your criminal control and secrecy agenda is kaput.
It really is criminal to withhold the information from me.
You'll find it out in due time...and at the court's choice, not yours.
Will you continue to hide and cower in your secrecy that shows you to be so
lacing in integriy and fail to admit what you communicated to her?
It's none of your business.
Not so, you god damned liar.
It IS my business because the Constitution requires that she reveal it to me
BEFORE any trial, YOU FOOL!
Idiot. I am not a witness, remember? You don't get to demand anything from
me.
She is COMPELLED to produce it for me.
Your lack of integrity shows you to be the god damned criminal peice of *****
that you really are you threatening coward.
Keep screeching.
(Annoying her is one of the more idiotic things you could do, and it won't
make your life any better...far from it, in fact.)
I didn't ignore you, you commie red flag control freak idiot.
Your conspiracy against me is fully known to me, and you can expect to be
arrested in short order.
*yawn*
I know your game, you criminal secrecy subterfuge idiot.
YOU ARE GUILTY!
LOL!
Your "court" is laughed at, saluted with one finger, and returned to the
dustbin from which it came.
How many times do you need me to tell you that you are an idiot compared to
me until you believe it?
More than you can count. (I'm not the criminal, and you are. Spot the
difference.)
Thanks for continuing to nail yourself to a cross, Johnnifer. (Too bad no
one's worshiping you, for obvious reasons.)
I'm not nailing myself to a cross, you idiot.
You're making more of an effort towards suicide by cop. Your neighbors don't
deserve that.
All the people who have neglected to perform their tasks as dictated by law
are nailing themselves to the cross that will subject them to me.
That is the certainty that you will learn.
I'll be sure and mention that at your funeral.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 12:25:17 AM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can
be
a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal liability
and
potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
Nobody is likely to ask you to testify against yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 07:45:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:58:29 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can
be
a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal liability
and
potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You CAN testify against yourself, but you cannot be required to
testify against yourself.
From all that you have presented here, it would appear that your
second best defense would be to not testify at all, because any
halfway competent DA will have you ranting like a lunatic in under 5
minutes. This would seal your fate and get you the maximum sentence.
Your best defense would appear to be to plead guilty and throw
yourself on the mercy of the court. Just like you did in your
indecent exposure case.
BTW, what was that indecent exposure thingy any way? Flashing the
neighborhood kids? Waving your willie at passing school buses? I
notice you moved between the time of your indictment and the time of
your next ticket.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
05 May 2007 09:26:55 AM |
|
|
Tom S <tscalfjr@cox.net> writes:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:58:29 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:463bffee$0$14099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
John D. Wentzky <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
To address that statement it bears stating that testifying against me can
be a dangerous thing to do when you know about potential criminal
liability and potential perjury charges in a court of law.
That's why they're required to tell the truth, even if it means
testifying against you.
I can not testify against myself.
You CAN testify against yourself, but you cannot be required to
testify against yourself.
From all that you have presented here, it would appear that your
second best defense would be to not testify at all, because any
halfway competent DA will have you ranting like a lunatic in under 5
minutes. This would seal your fate and get you the maximum sentence.
Your best defense would appear to be to plead guilty and throw
yourself on the mercy of the court. Just like you did in your
indecent exposure case.
BTW, what was that indecent exposure thingy any way? Flashing the
neighborhood kids? Waving your willie at passing school buses? I
notice you moved between the time of your indictment and the time of
your next ticket.
The two addresses are barely a mile apart, if that much...the more recent one
being outside the city limits, apparently. (Something tells me the
neighborhood kids have been well aware of him and his problems for the last
decade or so.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 11:39:34 AM |
|
|
John D. Wentzky wrote:
LOL!
I am winning, and I am going to be so victorious that you will be required
to pay according to the mandates I issue.
'required to pay' and just what are you expecting John? I know we are
all expecting you to goto jail, YMMV of course.
That much is a certainty.
I can't wait for this video to appear on one of these "Real Cops" type shows
I can almost hear the very serious narrative "and just as the officer
approached the suspect, the suspect swang round and threw the officer to
the ground. His partner leapt into action and was forced to subdue the
suspect before restraining him in handcuffs. For this unprovoked assult
on the officer the suspect got 3 years doing hard-time"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Constitutional requirements. |
04 May 2007 04:17:57 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
"Martin" <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:463b60e7$0$6955$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
LOL!
I am winning, and I am going to be so victorious that you will be
required to pay according to the mandates I issue.
'required to pay' and just what are you expecting John? I know we are all
expecting you to goto jail, YMMV of course.
YMMV?
Actually, that should be YMWV. (You'll have to figure it out on your own.)
I hope you don't think that I am directing that statement against all
atheists.
It would help if you would think, in the first place.
PLH is who edited the newsgroups field and added alt.atheism to it.
Ask him why he acts that way?
Why don't you? I'll tell you why: because YOU added a couple of newsgroups
that have no place in any rational discussion: alt.politics.nationalism.white
(not surprising, given your statements about others of a differing race than
yours), along with alt.politics.nationalism.white.announce (trying to recruit
Nazi failures to help you?). You also add soc.men (who couldn't care less
about your mental illness) and us.legal (who would be amused by your
pretensions of sanity), which don't deserve your abuse. Keep doing that, and
I can see complaints being forwarded to BellSouth.
That much is a certainty.
I can't wait for this video to appear on one of these "Real Cops" type
shows
Do you mean so the people see me committing no crime and suffering beatings
at the hands of taxpaid employyes who carry weapons?
So viewers can see why you're going to be in enforced confinement for some
time, if not permanently.
I can almost hear the very serious narrative "and just as the officer
approached the suspect, the suspect swang round and threw the officer to
the ground.
That would be a lie.
How would you know?
His partner leapt into action and was forced to subdue the suspect before
restraining him in handcuffs.
That would be another lie.
For this unprovoked assult on the officer the suspect got 3 years doing
hard-time"
It is more likely if there is anything televised or published about this it
will read more like, "The officers who employed excessive force against Mr.
Wentzky were put on administrative leave without pay."
Bet your life on that, then. That will result in a John Wentzky-free society.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
