and
That is fairly convincing - not Jay but Poppycock. So what? Primarily it means that you would be casting direct slurs about remedy as I present interpretation of §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411 in accord with Wserra's blog on "Q". - But rather with me having to display directly intrusive privacy violations I can continue to enjoy the people exercising remedy from this website do so from their own understanding of it, rather than depending on proven examples. Around here most members seem to believe JohnnyCash and other sanitized examples as true. More importantly though, the metaphysics around successful application of remedy comes from heart math.As for whether any Quatloosians are over here under other guises... so what? If you believe in what you say, you should be able to defend it to anyone.
I maintain my theory that what killed Q in popularity and interesting reading was when Wserra began linking the Libel of Review cases published on PACER. Showing good people's private information for ridicule feels bad and that is what does it - when people identify with being "outed" from anonymity on the Internet.
This is Bobbinville's first Post:
Bobbinville's most recent post:
With JohnnyCash's intuition in support it certainly makes sense that Poppycock would become bored with Q and find himself registering here. Quite directly then:
Are you Pottapauq?
I enjoy the probability that you are because it really does make comment how Q has become so boring without Harvester and Myself shredding Wserra's slurs. Of course Webhick has programmed the website chat area so that I am blind unless I borrow an IP by proxy or surf on anybody else's computer. - Which I also find highly entertaining that she would trouble with me; trying to keep me from reading such a boring website. So let's pretend that you intend to behave indefinitely... I will be treating you appropriately and reading your posts much more carefully for the gist that you are intending to attack remedy according to law.
It is amusing to me that I can address your first and last posts at once:The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means...
andOriginally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182
Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400I amplify your point with Colorado constitutional law being that only the county court judges are allowed to practice law at all. The appeals justices are bound to "authority" or case law (common law) stare decisis.Originally Posted by USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640
However I believe that my days of moderating you, or many others for that matter are coming to a close. I might well be casting an advertisement for all registered members ever here to take another look around and well, since they are already registered users there might be a flurry of interest in American Remedy. It could be that I would be overwhelmed from brain trust and other career interests to maintain this as "my" website feeling responsible for defending the integrity of remedy here by being a watchdog against the Poppycocks of the Internet.
Regards,
David Merrill.