Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[Dave Rogers]

So why federal REGULATIONS if not regulatory?

Because regulations do four things. They mandate necessary practice, they recommend good practice, they discourage poor practice, and they forbid illegal practice. I find it hard to see how an intelligent adult could fail to figure that out.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip running away>

TLDR

You have already proved yourself wrong.

 

[OKBob]

So why federal REGULATIONS if not regulatory?

I don't know exactly why these sections were written in an advisory mood, but I suspect that the use of "should" conveyed that no penalty would be levied as long as substantial compliance was observed. Many desiderata in the law are satisfied by substantial rather than strict compliance. Busy bureaucracies may be forgiven for minor slips. Perhaps they should be forgiven. Maybe they shall and must be forgiven.

 

[manifesto]

Are you seriously asking us to accept the following argument? (1) People who have at any time used the phrase or concept "CT" have a biased, irrational belief in the lone-assassin scenario; (2)

More than that, using ad hominem as a tool to counter critical citizen inquest holding power accountable.

OKBob has at one or another time used the phrase or concept "CT"

Ok, I rephrase. Has fairly regularly used the ad hominem concept ”CT” or worse as a way to counter critical citizen inquest holding power accountable.

; (3) therefore, OKBob's arguments may be safely ignored because they derive from a biased, irrational belief.

Wrong. If in this case OKBob is saying that he is an expert authority on the subject at hand, and therefore should be trusted without evidence of this formal expertise or evidence supporting his claim regarding the issue at hand, OKBob’s ”arguments” should be put on hold until such evidence are presented.

That is the case ESPECIALLY if OKBob is a confessed ’anti-conspiracist’ and thereby at least biased in favor of that out-look.

 

[manifesto]

I don't know exactly why these sections were written in an advisory mood, but I suspect that the use of "should" conveyed that no penalty would be levied as long as substantial compliance was observed. Many desiderata in the law are satisfied by substantial rather than strict compliance. Busy bureaucracies may be forgiven for minor slips. Perhaps they should be forgiven. Maybe they shall and must be forgiven.

Lets say something goes wrong with a transaction. Wouldn’t it be safer to have followed the regulations in order to be covered financially?

 

[OKBob]

If in this case OKBob is saying that he is an expert authority on the subject at hand, and therefore should be trusted without evidence of this formal expertise or evidence supporting his claim regarding the issue at hand, OKBob’s ”arguments” should be put on hold until such evidence are presented.

I don't recall claiming infallibility on legal language. I don't know what you require in the way of "evidence" of my expertise. I don't think this list wants to get bogged down with everyone flaunting his or her formal credentials.

Look, I've said my piece about "should." If my arguments don't persuade you, then that's just the way it will have to be.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Lets say something goes wrong with a transaction. Wouldn’t it be safer to have followed the regulations in order to be covered financially?

You are the one making the claim. Cite. Argue. Explain. But be honest this time.

 

[OKBob]

Lets say something goes wrong with a transaction. Wouldn’t it be safer to have followed the regulations in order to be covered financially?

Something didn't go wrong. The government paid Klein's the amount indicated on Oswald's PMO. An example of government working for its citizen rather than hassling them over technical slips (if it was a slip).

 

[traxy]

As I said, I have read through the relevant documents but I need Axxman to tell me what Axxman find convincing in order to responde to Axxmans claim.

Do you understand?

No, you haven't.

Want to know how I know that?

Because you reply to a comment about a panel of photography experts authenticating the autopsy materials with "I have looked and I have not found any experts" when I've linked you to their report nearly a half a dozen times.

You ask for evidence, you are provided evidence, you ignore that evidence, a few posts later you claim there is no evidence. It's the circle of ignorance.

 

[JayUtah]

So why federal REGULATIONS if not regulatory?

That rules exist does not mean there cannot ever be discretionary departures from them. Any body of regulation has to be able to accommodate exceptional or poorly-behaved circumstances. That's why they are written with specific language indicate what parts are mandatory and what parts are advisory. And that's why we train lawyers to become experts in the application of laws and regulations.

You're simply trying to hammer an individual word here or there in a vacuum and ask it to mean exactly what you need it to mean to sustain your predetermined belief. That's just not how life works.

 

[JayUtah]

Lets say something goes wrong with a transaction. Wouldn’t it be safer to have followed the regulations in order to be covered financially?

Let's say something goes wrong because a transaction that was otherwise compliant, made in good faith, and would in all other respects have been both lawful and conscionable, failed because some officious procedure was not followed. Wouldn't it have been safer to omit the formality? Again, you're just trying to amplify what is desirable to make it mandatory. It is not mandatory in the body of regulation you're citing. That's simply the way it is written, and no amount of handwaving or hypothesizing on your part converts it to a mandate.

 

[Hans]

What a creepy comment and laughter..

It is very funny to seeing you lie in public. The funniest part is you think no one sees you doing it.

Purely delusion actions from a worshippers of the tenets of Saint Gomer the whopper teller.

Manifesto said:

I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA, yeah public lies.....well done Manifesto

 

[manifesto]

Try to remember your arguments from one post to the next.



You're back to quoting Sandy Larsen as an expert. You already admitted he's not.

As I said, I have never quoted Larsen in any capacity of being an ”expert”. This is Hanks way of rephrasing a question in order to gain some angle. A straw man.

Hank never said what Micah said I said. Please quote me saying that's a bank endorsement. It's clearly the Klein's vendor stamp where they stamp the money order before depositing it. William Waldman even attested to that in his testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
== UNQUOTE ==

Here's Waldman Exhibit 9:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365a.htm

Good. One issue cleared.

No problem there, although he presents no evidence that's the Klein's account number and not the bank routing number.

So, what do Waldman mean by this?

”... followed by our account No. 50 space 91144...”​

He provides no evidence that's the case, that it would have to be done for the money order to be accepted. Remember the language of the regulation he's citing says the language is assumed and has the force of law even if it's not expressly there. You're quoting the opinion of a fellow CT - someone you already admitted is not an expert, and saying I need to show he's wrong.

1. Do you agree that there should be at least one bank endorsement stamp on the PMO?

2. Do you agree that there is no date or ABA transit number printed/stamped on the PMO?

”The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.”​

 

[Hans]

This is day five of no evidence from manifesto

We can now add to that another howler

I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.

This post will be reposted until the questions are answered to H's satisfaction.

Manifesto is now up to 83+ claims with no evidence provided.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As I said, I have never quoted Larsen in any capacity of being an ”expert”. This is Hanks way of rephrasing a question in order to gain some angle. A straw man.

Why were you citing a know nothing CT then?

Good. One issue cleared.

So, what do Waldman mean by this?

”... followed by our account No. 50 space 91144...”​

1. Do you agree that there should be at least one bank endorsement stamp on the PMO?

2. Do you agree that there is no date or ABA transit number printed/stamped on the PMO?

”The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.”​

Can you cite where the money order was dishonored?

 

[JayUtah]

I have not checked it’s in some crime investigation manual, but that is still my claim.

Your claim is based on the notion of an expected procedure not being carried out. You have no case if the omitted action is not mandated or advised by the applicable procedure. All you have in that case is that someone didn't do what you, in your lay opinion, would have done. "If I Ran the Zoo..."

My claim is that this is the first thing I would do if finding a suspect murder weapon...

What you would do has no relevance. You aren't a trained police officer carrying out the investigation of a murder and following the established procedures to insure correct handling of recovered evidence. Your layman's judgment simply has no evidentiary value in determining that something is suspicious by its omission.

It takes a couple of seconds and if NOT been fired, continue the search of possible murder weapon/s in a very critical point in time.

One can also continue the search without pausing to perform a field test on one weapon. Just because the weapon has not been fired does not mean it is immaterial to a potential murder case, especially if it is found in the area suspected to be were the shooter committed his act. You're insinuating the search stops just because one weapon has been found.

I can make a whole list of things that would only take a few seconds to do after I return home from work each night. That some or all of them aren't done doesn't immediately create suspicion. That's because suspicion at their omission requires establishing a needful purpose that would be endangered by their omission. If there is no consequence, the omission is unremarkable. You're trying to hang your whole case on the idea that something which is easy to do should necessarily then be done. You're paying far less attention to what would actually compel the act you say was suspiciously unperformed. Non sequitur.

You would NOT check the weapon to see if it had NOT been fired?

No, I would not. The test you proposed, as has already been mentioned, would alter the evidence from its as-found condition. You haven't proposed any other suitable test, nor substantiated that any test in any manner would be the prescribed method of handling a potential murder weapon. Making up new rules as you go doesn't create a foundation upon which you can exculpate Oswald or implicate the CIA or anyone else. This is where many conspiracy theories fall down. They create expectations based on their intuitive but uninformed notions of what is possible, acceptable, ordinary, or needful. Then they measure happenstance events against these private interpretations and attribute a shortfall to some wildly nefarious speculative cause rather than their deficient expectations.

 

[MicahJava]

This is day five of no evidence from manifesto

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/8kK8ZOE.jpg[/qimg]

We can now add to that another howler


Manifesto is now up to 83+ claims with no evidence provided.

We can do font sizes now? EOP Wound proves multiple shooters.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, I have never quoted Larsen in any capacity of being an ”expert”.

Yes you have. You have characterized him as someone who has acquired the necessary specialized knowledge (i.e., by studying postal and banking regulations) and whose judgment regarding the application of that knowledge toward some real-world set of facts should have evidentiary value. You're not using the word "expert" but your proposition is, in form and effect, making it expert testimony.

You're struggling now to escape the hidden premise in your argument, which is that the proper understanding of regulatory language is a matter simply of reading the plain language and ignoring any non-propositional knowledge or specialized contexts. Now that this premise is exposed, you're trying to deny that any sort of interpretation has taken place and that the only acceptable rebuttal is to find some clearly contravening regulation. The correct rebuttal here is that the interpretation is wrong.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up

Here's one from your fellow maker-upper:

We can do font sizes now? [SIZE="7"]EOP Wound proves multiple shooters.[/SIZE]

Is it a competition between you two to see who can tell the most lies?

 

[Hans]

We can do font sizes now? EOP Wound proves multiple shooters.

Sorry in your mind only