Comment: block

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You might be (see in situ)


I find it really hard to read your posts. You're obviously (from reading them) off your rocker. If one gets a few sentences into one of your wall of text festivals, there is already so much bad analysis, strange conclusions, and just illogical thinking that it is impossible to feel that finishing the wordy diatribe will yield anything other than a wasted half an hour trying to debunk it. And at the end of the day, you won't care because you're not looking for the truth, you're looking for a stage and this is the best you can do.

Because you post things that, while being poorly reasoned and factually ridiculous, are supposedly anti-establishment in nature, you get some support here. But it sure isn't from anyone who knows anything about the legal system, or who has a well-reasoning mind. You get kiddies and mental deficients who give you an automatic thumbs up for using words like "phreedom" and for claiming you are "for" their cause.

When you do cite a law, you cite it for a reason that you misconstrue and that becomes rapidly apparent. Rule 4.100 in Ca prevents an attorney from appearing specially (i.e., just for that hearing) only at an arraignment on a criminal matter (had to look it up since I am not in CA and don't do that kind of law). I see attorneys specially appear at hearings all the time in other contexts. That rule seems to me it obviously exists to prevent criminal defendants from playing rotating attorneys as a delay tactic or claiming their lawyer for the day didn't have the calendar of the actual trial lawyer as a delay tactic. This way, the trial lawyer has to be there and set the trial date.

That's it. A perfectly valid law. I fail to see how this "puts me in a box" and comprehensively rids me of the ability to represent my clients or otherwise sells my soul to satan. But I'm sure that to you, in your world where you are perfect and "all" courts and "all" lawyers and "all" persons that are educated and "all" of everything you aren't is somehow bad or "corrupt" or as you put it "criminal" - that you differ.

You're not for the same cause that Ron Paul was. He worked within the system, in the actual government. he didn't stay outside and it engage in "play government" and he didn't advocate anarchy and he didn't support the idea that there is a "straw man". So why are you here? Oh yeah, you want a stage. I suspect you'll respond that I am a statist/authoritarian (not true) or that you are for "freedom" (not true) or that you are a super duper genius (proven not true by your posts). I will blissfully not know your response because you are blocked!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein