So, I saw this woman. She looked good, so I said hi. ;-)
She’s from DC. (That’s bad)
She’s an attorney. (That’s worse)
She works at the DOJ. (Oh, hell no)
I figured she was a lost cause, but I decided to see if I could get some inside scoop from her. She laughed that everybody in the city of DC is an attorney. (I don’t find that funny)
I asked her what she thought about the Sussmann indictment. (Who?)
She has no idea who Michael Sussmann is, much less that he was indicted. She has no idea who John Durham is.
She works on the civil side of things, not criminal. But still. She is a fucking attorney in fucking DC, and she works at the D.O. fucking J. Hello! Anybody home?
She told me that when a federal government employee gets fired, they have due process rights. I thought, yeah no shit, everybody has due process rights. I told her everybody has due process rights, and she really could not comprehend the concept that everybody has rights. She seemed to think that federal government employees “are in a privileged position” (her words) and that’s why they have due process rights. For a seemingly intelligent woman, this chick is clueless.
I left the conversation thinking that this is exactly what we see with so many doctors. Both doctors and attorneys are taught a very narrow slice of the truth of their professions, and then they have blinders on to anything that is not within the scope of what their professors, bosses, and co-workers spoon-feed to them. They have no knowledge beyond their tunnel vision. Much of what they think they know is not true. And there is a lot of truth that they are completely unaware of.
And these attorneys in DC have an obvious arrogance about them. They think they are on the top of the food chain. They think they have somehow “made it.” The reality is the federal government is at the bottom of the food chain. They are servants. Nothing more.
I also listened to an interview on the radio where a lawyer was talking about how so many judges have been “fooled” (that was the word used) by claims of the 1905 Supreme Court case related to mandating vaccines. He said it was a very narrow ruling (only applied to a specific situation, not related to what we are seeing now), and even that was overturned later by the Supreme Court. It seems that lawyers are bamboozeling judges into believing that the court case is relevant when it is not. But apparently, judges are too lazy or too stupid to read.
Clown World.
Someone else posted on this board about IQ.
People with high IQ tend to be great in a scope of knowledge that is given to them.
But to ADAPT their thinking. That's where they fall short. You have a lot of high IQ doctors and lawyers out there.
But have not idea how to adapt beyond what was told to them. Which is why you have tons of "smart high IQ" people in Asia.
But if you notice.
A lot of them will fall what the powers to be say like sheep.
Current schooling is about short-term memory, not intellect, wisdom, or critical thinking.
Can you remember what the text book said, and name the 3 causes of 'X'?
If yes, you will do well on the test, get an A grade, and be considered "smart."
If you have a hard time remembering, you won't.
Simply studying long hours (the secret of the Asians) by repetitive reading will make it sink in long enough to do well on the test. But that does not necessarily translate to the real world, where the tests are harder to identify and solve.
The Chinese are good copy cats and thieves of technology, but they create nothing.
None of that has to do with critical thinking. The farmer's kid who only finished a 6th grade education, but learned how nature works and the process of trial and error will probably have better critical thinking skills than the kid who went to Harvard because he spent all non-school hours studying and memorizing for the next test.
Home School.
Well said
Yes - a close family member was an administrative assistant for an engineering dept of a college in the Midwest that has started accepting a very high number of Chinese students. ($$$) she said cheating and plagiarizing was a HUGE issue with these kids. They would have to be talked to repeatedly about it. I also watched a documentary once about how few university spots there are in China and competition is fierce. The amount of ways they cheat on entrance exams was pretty impressive. Many devices, crib notes, etc are confiscated ....
I hated math. I have a decently high IQ but math is not my forté. I remember in Algebra class, I used to work out my own way to come up with the answers even though it wasn’t the “proper” way to do it. That came in handy when I took my ASVAB test for the military years later. I scored high enough overall that they told me to pick whatever career I wanted.
This.
You can measure someones intelligence by how much they understand they dont know
100%. I know most if not all of us in this forum are cognizant of our own limitations, and that’s why we’re here—to research, bounce ideas off each other, etc.
It's all about "application" of what you've learned.
literally me reading that: ... ... ... ...what the fuck is blinker oil?
me: oh...
some call it a blinker, the auto manufacturers call it a turn signal, I like call it "that thing nobody ever fucking uses," lol.
In the UK, most people call them indicators or flashers.
Indicator in Australia too.
A similar joke you may have heard is asking an apprentice to get a 'left handed screw driver'.
Lmao, funny you should mention that, I just got done reading R.G. Letourneau's autobiography, and in it, he talked about "left-handed Cadillacs," car's that cranked in the opposite direction that other cars did, so when you cranked it over (by hand, this was around the beginning of the twentieth), if it reversed on you, it might break your arm.
Ha! Funny when little synchronicities take place.
right? lol
LOL. In high school, some of us guys used to talk about car stuff with the girls. If they had a problem, we would listen and say ...
Dude #1: Hmm, sounds like it could be your carburetor belt.
Girl: Really? Is that bad?
Dude #2: (trying to keep from laughing hysterically) No, that's not good. Could even be your camshaft excavator.
Girl: Oh, no!
Dude #3: (on the floor laughing, he couldn't help it)
We used to do the exact same thing, but it would be in slow moving traffic at red lights. Me : “Hey, your razivator is dripping reticulator fluid!” Driver with big eyes: “Is that bad? Should I pull over??” 😂😂😂
“Well you need a new johnson rod in there."
“Oh, a Johnson rod. Yeah, well better put one of those on”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCe6NOBUut0
Stop signs with the white line around the edges are optional. You don’t have to stop for those.... it’s just a suggestion.
Indoctrination is not intellect. These people would thrive in factories doing repetitive work that once you learn u end up on auto pilot.
they even look uo case law to tell them What to think. They are helpless with out their masters direction.
This is why undermining an educational system is the critical step. It isn't even the brainwashing: it's the narrowness of information and killing critical inquiry. If people are asking questions, they are educating themselves.
Bingo. We see it everywhere. The ultra-specialization to the exclusion of critical thinking and understanding the big picture is the problem.
We see it with doctors, lawyers, judges, police, teachers, everywhere.
And it's been done on purpose.
As the old saying goes, they specialize to know more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing at all.
Mark Twain: "Never confuse education with intelligence".
Luckily my dad had ideas about raising children as "Renaissance men" i.e. acquainted with every art, science, sport, and philosophy. It all works together.
Just like the Mockingbird Media.
To quote Major Katsuragi
Edit: To all those saying movies/tv don't keep your attention anymore. Check out Ghost In The Shell. Movies or TV show are top tier. Really interesting what-if scenario of the future of mankind.
Yes. Specialization is for insects.
Bingo!
Exactly. I was going to add school teachers to the doctors and lawyers who are extremely narrow minded and limited in their understanding of what's really going on in this world. Throw in their holier-than-thou attitude for good measure.
so did you nail it or what?
KEK
I would never trust a female attorney, so no.
About late 20's, blonde, maybe 5'7", trim, approx C-cup, probably 125 lbs or so.
Not a 10, but a decent 8. Good enough to check out.
But then, she opened her mouth, and a bunch of shit came out.
Speaking nonsense can turn a 10 into a 3 really quickly. You made the right choice.
Never stick your dick in crazy
I don't understand men who know a woman is clearly leftist/insane and still want to bang.
I don't care how attractive a guy is, if his brain is NPC mush, why would I want to hit that?
Maybe find a conservative who lets you fuck? They exist, specially those repressed catholic girls.
Kek 🤣
LOL
Ha, I planned to pose this same question. Inquiring minds want to know.
yeah if I was young and single, that would have been my quest.
We married folk sometimes re-live our wild and crazy youth vicariously ;-)
Don't a lot of judges rely heavily on their clerks? Just like how congress critters rely on their aides to read bills and tell them the highlights?
At the Supreme Court, they definitely do.
In Congress, I would bet that at least 80% never read anything, and they don't really require their clerks to understand anything, either. They wait for their "leadership" or lobbyists or puppetmasters to tell them how to vote, and what are the talking points.
There are 535 members of Congress. Notice, around 5%-10% are the ones we see paraded on TV. They are the ones who push the narratives. The rest of them do nothing. Maybe they are not invited on TV/radio for a reason. Either they don't want to, or no one wants them to.
And congressmen rely on their staffers...like those that travelled (via Atlantic Council sponsored travel) to Ukraine to meet with Bill Taylor, Yovanovich, Poroshenko, and others in August 2019 before impeachment sham #1-- per House Travel reports agenda.
Judges can be very stupid. There is an old joke: "What do you call the people at the bottom of your law class? ... Your honor."
I’m from DC. I have friends who are/were DOJ attorneys incl in the NSD. I can confirm this attitude and arrogance. DOJ needs to be brought to its knees. And, no, you can’t swing a dead cat in this town w/o hitting a lawyer.
You had a conversation with a minion. Minions don't think, they just march in formation with other minions.
True, but these minions think they are the smart ones, which is why they are dangerous.
Stupid people are dangerous.
The BAR (legal society) is a private club, with private rules, that have nothing to do with the public - living men and women. They turned men and women into "legal persons (corporations), human beings, residents, taxpayers, drivers, litigants, affiants, plaintiffs, defendants, etc. (legalese).
Members of said club created several private corporations; The United States of America (Inc.), the United States, UNITED STATES, and several others using similar semantic deceit.
**To "Attorn": ** late 13c., Anglo-French, "to turn over to another," from Old French atorner "to turn, turn to, assign, attribute, dispose," from a- "to" (see ad-) + tourner "to turn," from Latin tornare "to turn on a lathe," from tornus "lathe," from Greek tornos "lathe, tool for drawing circles," from PIE root *tere- (1) "to rub, turn." In feudal law, "to transfer homage or allegiance to another lord."
Parasites?
I hope peeps here at GA start catching on soon.
And the best part of the sick joke: Judges and lawyers are ultimately members of the same club, discussing how to fleece you.
Consider the 12 presumptions of law the moment you step into a court room. Meaning, they are coloring the law a priori.
I belief there is a law in 18 USC 242 about coloring of law, and in 241 it is about conspiracy to deprive rights.
That leads into racketeering: Title 18 USC 1961 and 1512 on blocking of the law.
Perjured they are, the lot of them.
Yessir. Key understanding. They aren't using/writing any "LAWs". Statutes, Codes, Acts, Ordinances, Mandates, Decrees, Executive Orders, "Public Policy", "Civil Rights", "Administrative Rules"...and on and on.... are all "Corporate By-Laws".
The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) isn't a set of "LAWs" either. It's for "commercial vehicles" - aka "Persons" (Legal Persons) - aka "Trusts" - aka ALL CAPS NAME. Do you see?
They all have names other than "LAW" quite deliberately.
They trick us with words. Once you understand the game, you can proceed lawfully. Until then, you're a victim of your own chosen ignorance.
Maxim of Law: Ignorance of the LAW is no defense
And yes, judges and lawyers/attorneys are all part of the club - a huge number unwittingly I might add, judges less so. All "law schools" flipped their educational system over to the "Legal system" in the late 1930s during the bankruptcy and final hijacking of our nation. Same thing happened with "medical schools" during this time period.
Thus, most don't know anything different. They know what they were taught to know.
What do attorneys do:
See what's habbening here?
A sovereign living man/woman files a CLAIM which is vastly superior to a "complaint", needing no "Re-Presentation" from an "attorner", moving their own court, in a public courthouse, with a "justice of the peace" acting simply as the referee, deciding neither law (really "rules of civil procedure") nor the FACTS. The sovereign gets a "Trial by Jury" of their peers, not a "Jury trial" for all controversies that exceed $20, in which said jury of peers decides both the LAW and the FACTS, as guaranteed by the 7th amendment of the Constitution.
Deception via the pen, upheld by the sword, furthered by the willful ignorance of we-the-people. It's all a game. When will we-the-people catch on?
Question: Do YOU (not someone else) have any EXPERIENCE (not theory) in a COURTROOM (regarding a specific case or claim) with this, and if so, how did it go?
Yes, defensively under "Special Appearance" only challenging jursidiction. These cases get **expunged ** when properly handled by a man/woman, without prejudice (MOST IMPORTANTLY), so they never appear on the court record where a practicing attorney could learn what had really happened.
No, offensively. I've seen it done, quite tactfully and honorably, by Bill Thornton however. It went swimmingly for him, where the initial judge, ignorant of the true LAW, was removed from the case, and a justice of the peace who understood what was happening stepped in to act as referee.
Karl Lentz mastered this process in dozens upon dozens of defensive situations for others, most commonly in child custody cases (TRESPASS upon PROPERTY) which he finds most egregious.
Thus, it can be done by a man/woman acting honorably and lawfully in front of an honest and honorable magistrate.
To be clear, a practicing attorney holding a BAR card cannot do any of this. Only a man or woman BEING the man/woman involved in their own personal matter. A "Counselor-At-Law" can assist said man/woman.
And none of this is "theory", for the record. It is the real and true Law of the Land.
Big round of applause! YES!
And indeed, you need no re-presentation as if you were a fool or a child. This presumption needs to be put to rest.
And also a nice one: challenge them on their position, by making them proof their authorization. Fun fact: they get green in the face, start screaming and yelling. I guess the foreign vessel in dry dock, when correctly challenged, caused them sea sickness.
There are 11 more presumption and challenges to smoke them out.
Excellent. Can you list them?
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Exhibit-7.pdf
This is both a good description of the presumptions and how to dispel them. Enjoy!
Great share, thanks!
You're welcome.
Check out also: American Law Center and UNIDROIT.
What is prescription? And how can prescription of time lose you the right of sovereignty or even bestow it on you?
This exactly thank you!
I am not at all surprised. The vast majority of lawyers are without imagination and critical thinking skills. They perhaps know the rote procedures for the very narrow bit of law they deal with but have zero understanding of legal philosophy and thus the Constitution. There are brilliant lawyers but they don't work in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy.
As a mechanic, this, being most of America's governance, legal and medical systems look to me like some kind of "Cat in the Hat" perpetual contraption with no rhythm or reason. I'm no doctor or lawyer but at least possess a moral standard that, if lives should be at risk, you can always THROW ON THE BRAKES!!!
Believe me I work with attorneys, lots of them have absolutely no common sense, are Libtards who believe in socialism, most likely have not read The Constitution. I correct the words subpoena, plaintiff, motion for summary judgement daily in their narratives it’s exhausting.
Schooling actively discourages individuality, logical thinking and questioning and pushes the status quo.
More schooling doesn't mean more intelligent.
It means the opposite.
This actually gives me a lot of hope though
It means Q team is working covertly under their noses. If the rank and file and the low level criminals have no clue what moves are being made, that means plan is actually in action
Yes, if you’re being prosecuted for a crime, you have certain rights whether you’re a member of the general public or a fed or a troll. No difference.
But that’s not what she was talking about.
When you’re being fired from your job there is a big difference.
In the private sector, generally there’s no due process owed, because your boss isn’t the federal government. In most states private employers can fire you for no reason at all. Or because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. They don’t have to give you a reason. They don’t have to give you an opportunity to be heard. The decision doesn’t have to make any sense.
However, when your boss happens to be the US Government, they have to follow a process. That’s part of why we have a deep state problem. It can be hard, slow, expensive to get rid of federal employees… particularly if you can’t prove a reason. When it comes to getting fired from a federal job, feds really are in a privileged position.
#ianal #justanidiotonline
Of course, Sussman wasn’t a fed as far as I know. He worked for Perkins Cole. She acted like she didn’t know who Sussman was, but referred to Klinesmith who was the FBI lawyer that changed the email.
Seems like she was engaging you in the topic… Seems like she knew more than she let on…
So yeah, probably good you didn’t talk much. Flynn also ran into a fed during the course of his normal job / life and had a perfectly innocent conversation without his own counsel present, because he didn’t think was an interrogation. And we know how that has turned out for him.
I never said that, and neither did she. I didn't even think about Klinesmith at the time, and she didn't mention it.
I have no idea where you got this idea, but it was not from me.
No, seems like you made up something that did not happen.
Are you mentally well?
Yes unfortunately OP is confusing criminal due process with equal employment act due process, which most who have not worked in the public sector do not know about. However the rest of the post is right on.
They learn what they're taught.
End of story.
On the plus side it means these people are easily taken advantage of by white hats.
I think it's even worse than that. People are vetted for their malleability. I drove past a church today with a prominently displayed rainbow flag, and it occurred to me that people who identify with that flag are potentially living their lives with a suitcase full of unaddressed wounding...exactly the thing that makes humans easy to manipulate.
Police forces vet potential recruits for how well it appears they would follow orders without thinking too deeply about anything...not skill and intelligence.
I don't doubt that military personnel have personality profiles on them that determine what kinds of opportunities will be presented. It makes sense for an organization to run that way, but the criteria that's used is way twisted into creating a force of obedient drones rather than free-thinking, intelligent folks who understand the chain of command.
What she means is that federal employees have statutory Title VII protections under the Equal Employment Act for retaliation, hazardous duty pay, whistleblowing, adverse action, termination, and more.
Most public employees have similar protections in their state constitutions which is why they are so difficult to fire and often incompetent because they know this. I am a public sector employee
It is a caste system of many tiers, particularly evident in legal, medical, political and corporate sectors, that enables corruption and rewards complicity to protect the system.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/untouchables-caste-system-us-race-martin-luther-king-india
Lesson one in life: Most people are stupid. Lib dem chicks from DC who 'claim' to be lawyers and don't even begin to understand the basic precepts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, are extra-double-dip stoopid.
She’s not an idiot; you misunderstood what she was saying. Obviously an attorney understands that everyone has 5th Amendment due process rights. Federal civil sevants ALSO have additional due process rights related to their employment, which can make it difficult to fire them. So she was correct; federal employees are “in a privileged position” relative to most other workers.
They have contractual rights, based on their employment contract.
A different employment contract would have different contractual rights, or not.
Everybody has due process rights.
Their contracts can be different, but their rights must be the same as everyone else, or you have a violation of equal protection of the laws.
You are conflating privileges with rights, just as she did.
No, they have due process rights based on federal statute. It’s a little weird that, because a lawyer said something you didn’t understand, your first assumption is that she’s a fool who needs basic legal concepts explained to her by somebody with no legal education.
True I work for them.
Very good post It's true that most doctors have less knowledge about the vaccine and Covid than the people on this board. That's a fact. They read a headline in the NEJM or JAMA and they run with it. They have done no research, they have not questioned whether anything is true. They just assume if it's in a medical journal it must be true. Just like most people who watch CNN think their lies are truth. And we trust our lives to these people?
There is a reason so many lawyers get "Political Science" (kek!) undergraduate degrees.before spending another three years getting blinkers surgically attached to their faces.
This is why most of us here can wipe the floor with these drs and lawyers in a debate. Just because you do good in school doesn't mean you're smart, or intelligent. It only means you're good at short term memory recall. Once they don't have a short term need for the info, they memory hole it. I saw this time and again in the military ops planning meetings I attended. The "shot callers" would make decisions based not in reality, or what the "grunts" were telling them, they make decisions based on some egghead's interpretation of facts on the ground. Which, btw, are almost always wrong. This is why our "Intelligence" agencies handicap the actual warriors on the battlefield. And is why [they] use lawfare to get what [they] want. The joke about "military intelligence" not being intelligent is apropos.
I feel like they think they know it all and never have to do more research. They think they know all there is to know, how arrogant.😡
Schools, colleges, and universities also tend to throw everything at you at once, like the analogy of standing in front of an open fire hydrant and being asked to take a sip of water. You've got so much that you're expected to learn in a short period of time that you never get the chance to fully understand what you are trying to learn. You don't learn to analyze because you aren't given time to analyze. Everything is a speed test - how fast can you do this. They intentionally put pressure on you so that you don't actually think.
No, she was conflating due process rights (not granted by government, but upheld by government via constitutional requirements) with procedural process related to a privilege (granted by government), just as you are doing.
But the conversation didn't go down that path, because she could not understand the distinction.
Yup, was thinking the exact same thing!
The same could be said about engineers as well.
Federal employees do have somewhat unique due process rights within their role as employees. They’re entitled to a more deliberate process when disciplined or fired than private employees. It sounds like y’all were talking about vaccine mandates, so I’d assume that’s what she was talking about. There’s just no way she didn’t believe citizens generally aren’t entitled to due process.
The language in Jacobson isn’t particularly narrow with respect to the general, healthy population, although it did speak to state police power rather than federal powers. This was reinforced by Zucht, which relied on Jacobson and ruled that it was “settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.” It’s possible that a federal mandate could be argued to infringe on a state’s police powers if a state banned mandates (along the lines of Lopez and Morrison), but I’d be shocked if the Court didn’t recognize as legitimate the virus’ effects on interstate commerce, so a federal mandate would probably be allowed to supersede a state ban.
Well, she was probably referring to PROCEDURAL due process rights in regard to being let go from her position. Lots of professors are in this same position. As state employees (as tenured professors from state universities are), they usually can only be fired "for cause" which is actions considered malicious or fraudulent. If let go for another reason, they have a procedural due process right to notice of the termination and a hearing.
This is unlike most employees of any sort who can be fired "at will".
There is a difference between procedural due process and substantive due process. Substantive due process comes partly from the 9th amendment, which states that just because a right isn't specifically enumerated in the constitution, does not mean the right does not exist. This is where we get the "right" of privacy, for example. This is also the source of where we have the "right" not to be an experimental pincushion for big pharma.
So yes, we all do have due process rights. But attorneys in her position also have procedural due process rights in relation to her job.
It is my opinion that "precedent"' is one of the biggest sacks of legal mumbo-jumbo bullshit in modern history.
Just curious, what did she look like? Sounds like someone I know
Yeah, that happened.