So ODNI might be technically in the right to withhold this info, but that raises the question: if someone in an intelligence department stumbles upon some wronging by a President (any President, not just Trump) how is that intelligence person supposed to report that info?
I wonder how much of this sort of stuff is driven by corporate lawyers looking to generate billable hours vs executives trying to look like they're doing something useful vs executives who are just clueless.
but the person displaying the photo is choosing to publicly display a photo with their relative wearing the uniform of a regime that committed mass genocide, instead of a photo of them at a picnic or decorating a Christmas tree.The article says "They also claimed these were the only photos they had of these relatives". Though I suppose that they could have put stickers over the Nazi symbols or something.
I mean, if they actually had a definition they'd be shouting it out.The thing is, most SovCits do have a concrete definition of common law, so I don't think John Smith/out_of_the_blue/whoever is a SovCit. The commenter in question seems to view common law as some sort of common sense type thing which people learn of via cultural osmosis.
JUST LOOK FOR IT -- other than on Wikipedia.Pretty much everyone but SovCits are going to agree with wikipedia on what common law is. So are we to look to SovCits to for info on the subject?
Online Sex-Trafficking Demand Drops After Backpage Takedown, Trump Admin Policies: ReportIIRC, Backpage was taken down before FOSTA, so even if taking down Backpage helped, it doesn't necessarily mean that FOSTA has also helped.
But since he's just copying bits and pieces of other people's ideas he can't answer, eh?I haven't seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.
FYI: So-called “hate speech” (e.g., White supremacist propaganda, homophobic slurs) is 100% legal in the United States unless it openly and directly advocates for illegal activity.IIRC, hate speech can be used as evidence of a hate crime, something that was already a crime but was given a harsher penalty than normal because of the motive (homophobia/racism/etc). Some take the fact that hate speech can be used as evidence of motive in a hate crime and misremember it as the hate speech in-and-of itself being illegal.
If you can cite a single ... “common law” court ruling that says otherwise,According to him, "common law" isn't past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People". You could ask him for a citation of these "ancient customs", but (from what I recall) he thinks that we probably already know what he's talking about and that we only ask these questions to waste his time.
First, I point out that Poophat is STRONG on "intellectual property", seems to have effectively disabled copy-paste with HTML tricks. That's not what the Internet is all about, right? He makes it difficult to capture text.I have no problem doing copy-paste at his site. Maybe something is wrong with your browser? After all, it wasn't displaying horizontal rules for you her on TD but was for everyone else.
Also mentions common law, yet again in way that Masnick claims isn't accurate, doesn't rely on prior court decisions, only the ancient customs of We The People.Ah, so we learn a bit more about what you mean by "common law".
Has any of you ever read a manufacturers slip to a vaccine????They list all of the things the might happen, without listing the chance of each happening. The chance of the more serious side effects is really quite low.
Are you saying that package inserts are not credible?The warnings in the package inserts don't mean that any of them are likely to happen, or a person receiving a vaccine is likely to get any of them.
Are you saying that parents and children are not credible?The problem isn't their credibility, but 1) just because X happened after a vaccination doesn't mean that it was caused by that vaccination, 2) signs of X (like autism) manifesting before a vaccination but the parents either not noticing or not realizing what the signs were, and 3) the fallible nature of human memory.
Are you saying that VAERS is not credible? Are you saying that the evidence in Vaccine court is not credible?1) IIRC, the standard of evidence in a VAERS hearing is different than that of a normal court. 2) The various times that VAERS has sided with the plaintiffs doesn't indicate that vaccines are more dangerous than doctors claim they are, nor does it indicate that (for example) vaccines cause autism.
So, I'm not agreeing with him, but as to why he's always going on about large posting gaps and astroturfing: according to him, astroturfers do NOT create their own accounts. While they could create accounts with throw-away email accounts while using proxies in order to cover their tracks, they only have to slip up once to leave evidence pointing back to them. So instead they bribe sites like this for the login info to abandoned accounts and use those abandoned accounts to do their astroturfing. That way if there's ever an investigation the site owners can just claim that abandoned accounts were taken over by hackers, and there's no evidence pointing back to the astroturfer.
While the judge can claim that he needs to know in order to determine if the case is in the proper venue, it seems that rather than requiring the names, merely knowing the general location (zip code?) of the account holders would seem to be a much more reasonable
Based on their IP addresses Twitter could (probably) determine which state they're in, but:
Or, in a combination of your first and third possibilities: The code was written by the government, but was purposefully written to exclude as many people as possible, and it's obvious that it was written for that purpose because the coders didn't bother to disguise it as garbage.
Crown Sterling's answer to this potential crisis in encryption, called TIME AI, is something the company calls "five-dimensional" encryption, "the world's first 'non-factor' based quantum AI encryption" based on polygons, AI-composed music, Fibonacci's sequence, and various other things.
Even if they'd figured out how to break RSA encryption and their brand new encryption method worked, why would anyone go with their new encryption method when Elliptic-curve cryptography is already available?
To the extent that Ron Cummins needs these complaints for his lawsuit, does he need to know who made the complaints? I don't see why he'd need that info, unless his lawsuit is alleging astroturfing.
Re: Re: zero credibility