Curious Supreme Court Ruling

[shanek]

Trouble is, in the time it takes to revisit all of Shanek's fantastic notions,

My fantastic notions? Okay, let's just take the first one of yours:

Rational like All banks MUST belong to the federal reserve?

Except that this was the actual challenge that I made in that very thread, when you and the other bigots were piling on to me:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43702&perpage=40&pagenumber=6

All right, you bigots: I challenge you to name ONE US national bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. (Not trusts or credit unions, they can be members of the Fed but don't have to.) ONE US national bank that's not a member of the Fed. ONE. That's all you have to to.

Scrut (the original claim, by the way, was Scrut's, not mine, and was that I was proffering a conspiracy theory. I asked him to provide one example of a conspiracy theory I hold to; he brought up the Fed issue. He is the one who played dodgeball and tried to turn the tables) jumped on my case, accused me of playing dodgeball, and insisted that I cite the law. Suddenly came back with, essentially, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I cited Title 12. Suddenly became reasonable and asked for an exact statute; I gave him TItle 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Section 222 and quoted him the relevant part.

Then YOU came in with your LIE and tried to turn it around, when I CLEARLY said "national banks" at the top of that very page! No one was pointing out the "national banks" thing before I cited the statute; I was the only one who said "national bank" (or US bank; they're pretty much the same thing). But, all of a sudden, once the bigots were proven wrong suddenly there was all this harping about "national banks" as if I hadn't been saying that all along.

You directly accused me of revising my initial claim, which would not include state banks, when in that very post I mentioned, the one I quoted above with the challenge, said quite explicitly, "ONE US national bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. (Not trusts or credit unions, they can be members of the Fed but don't have to.)"

(Scrut repeated that lie, and unleashed a torrent of personal abuse on me. That was when I put him on ignore. Keep it up, and you'll join him there, if you can't stop trolling and lying.)

Bottom line: you're a LIAR. If you want to run a US bank, you are forced by law to join the Fed. That's the "conspiracy theory" you and the other bigots were jumping on me for believing in. Strange that this "conspiracy theory" is codified into the US Code...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My fantastic notions? Okay, let's just take the first one of yours:



Except that this was the actual challenge that I made in that very thread, when you and the other bigots were piling on to me:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43702&perpage=40&pagenumber=6



Scrut (the original claim, by the way, was Scrut's, not mine, and was that I was proffering a conspiracy theory. I asked him to provide one example of a conspiracy theory I hold to; he brought up the Fed issue. He is the one who played dodgeball and tried to turn the tables) jumped on my case, accused me of playing dodgeball, and insisted that I cite the law. Suddenly came back with, essentially, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I cited Title 12. Suddenly became reasonable and asked for an exact statute; I gave him TItle 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Section 222 and quoted him the relevant part.

Then YOU came in with your LIE and tried to turn it around, when I CLEARLY said "national banks" at the top of that very page! No one was pointing out the "national banks" thing before I cited the statute; I was the only one who said "national bank" (or US bank; they're pretty much the same thing). But, all of a sudden, once the bigots were proven wrong suddenly there was all this harping about "national banks" as if I hadn't been saying that all along.

You directly accused me of revising my initial claim, which would not include state banks, when in that very post I mentioned, the one I quoted above with the challenge, said quite explicitly, "ONE US national bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. (Not trusts or credit unions, they can be members of the Fed but don't have to.)"

(Scrut repeated that lie, and unleashed a torrent of personal abuse on me. That was when I put him on ignore. Keep it up, and you'll join him there, if you can't stop trolling and lying.)

Bottom line: you're a LIAR. If you want to run a US bank, you are forced by law to join the Fed. That's the "conspiracy theory" you and the other bigots were jumping on me for believing in. Strange that this "conspiracy theory" is codified into the US Code...

You have told so many lies, that you can't even keep them all straight. Let me help. First, you are linking to the wrong thread. It is in an earlier thread that you made the claim that all banks were forced to join the Federal Reserve. I corrected you, you had a hissy fit, and (supposedly) put me on ignore. After you were humbled there, only then did you start posting it correctly that it is only National banks that must belong. The only problem is that you now claim that is what you posted all along.

This is to be expected from a pseudo-skeptic. How do you keep your lies straight on the campaign trail?

 

[crimresearch]

My fantastic notions? Okay, let's just take the first one of yours:



Except that this was the actual challenge that I made in that very thread, when you and the other bigots were piling on to me:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43702&perpage=40&pagenumber=6



Scrut (the original claim, by the way, was Scrut's, not mine, and was that I was proffering a conspiracy theory. I asked him to provide one example of a conspiracy theory I hold to; he brought up the Fed issue. He is the one who played dodgeball and tried to turn the tables) jumped on my case, accused me of playing dodgeball, and insisted that I cite the law. Suddenly came back with, essentially, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I cited Title 12. Suddenly became reasonable and asked for an exact statute; I gave him TItle 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter I, Section 222 and quoted him the relevant part.

Then YOU came in with your LIE and tried to turn it around, when I CLEARLY said "national banks" at the top of that very page! No one was pointing out the "national banks" thing before I cited the statute; I was the only one who said "national bank" (or US bank; they're pretty much the same thing). But, all of a sudden, once the bigots were proven wrong suddenly there was all this harping about "national banks" as if I hadn't been saying that all along.

You directly accused me of revising my initial claim, which would not include state banks, when in that very post I mentioned, the one I quoted above with the challenge, said quite explicitly, "ONE US national bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. (Not trusts or credit unions, they can be members of the Fed but don't have to.)"

(Scrut repeated that lie, and unleashed a torrent of personal abuse on me. That was when I put him on ignore. Keep it up, and you'll join him there, if you can't stop trolling and lying.)

Bottom line: you're a LIAR. If you want to run a US bank, you are forced by law to join the Fed. That's the "conspiracy theory" you and the other bigots were jumping on me for believing in. Strange that this "conspiracy theory" is codified into the US Code...

Standard Shanek fraud...to label my posting of factual information as an attack on him, and then to flip-flop about what he said, then fabricate the claim that others made the statement originally put forth by him.

Now he has added the trick of running away for months, hoping that time will add enough confusion that the can take later posts out of context and cover up his errors with more lies.


It's tired, it is boring, and no one is falling for it, Shanek.

You're done here.

You have all the credibility and none of the amusement value of 1inChrist.

 

[Suddenly]

Standard Shanek fraud...to label my posting of factual information as an attack on him, and then to flip-flop about what he said, then fabricate the claim that others made the statement originally put forth by him.

Now he has added the trick of running away for months, hoping that time will add enough confusion that the can take later posts out of context and cover up his errors with more lies.

Gee... I guess the captain turned off the "no hounding people over the past" sign... Perhaps I should join in....

posted by guess who

The 6th amendment right to have an attorney present is part of what is called the 'Miranda warning'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34520&highlight=miranda


Still stand behind that claim?

As I have posted previously:

Just curious. You may want to read some of these cases before you reply...

A snippet of Miranda to maybe help you along:

(384 U.S. 346)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today. Our aim is to assure that the individual's right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which is a brief statement reflecting the theme of the case, that Miranda is about the 5th amendment, and the 5th amendment is found to contain a right to counsel. As later cases such as Fellers illustrate, this is a seperate right from the 6th amendment right. (540 U.S. 519)




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have consistently applied the deliberate-elicitation standard in subsequent Sixth Amendment cases,see United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 270 (1980) ("The question here is whether under the facts of this case a Government agent 'deliberately elicited' incriminating statements ... within the meaning of Massiah"); Brewer, supra, at 399 (finding a Sixth Amendment violation where a detective "deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from [the suspect]"), and we have expressly distinguished this standard from the Fifth Amendment custodial-interrogation standard, see Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 632, n. 5 (1986) ("[T]he Sixth Amendment provides a right to counsel ... even when there is no interrogation and no Fifth Amendment applicability"); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 300, n. 4 (1980) ("The definitions of 'interrogation' under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, if indeed the term 'interrogation' is even apt in the Sixth Amendment context, are not necessarily interchangeable"); cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967) (holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...945&perpage=40&highlight=miranda&pagenumber=4

I'm still waiting for some basis for the assertion that "The 6th amendment right to have an attorney present is part of what is called the 'Miranda warning.'"


(Again, I don't see the error as anything to worry about, as it is usually an obscure difference that happened to be quite relevant to the origninal thread in that the difference is the core reason for the Supreme Court's ruling in Fellers. The only reason I bring it up is the irony w/r/t the hounding of shanek and the accusations that he just runs away. )

 

[crimresearch]

Uhhhh..Sock Puppet...that is me making fun of you for YOUR claim that police had to give a 6th amendment warning on the street....


Are you so hard up for clients that you have to come here and lie *without* getting paid for it, just to stay in practice?

 

[Suddenly]

Uhhhh..Sock Puppet...that is me making fun of you for YOUR claim that police had to give a 6th amendment warning on the street....


Are you so hard up for clients that you have to come here and lie *without* getting paid for it, just to stay in practice?

Funny that you cannot cite text for your assertion that I made such a claim.

All you can offer is lame insults. Typical.

Lets use your words again as per my making a claim that "police had to give a 6th amendment warning on the street...."

Just so there won't be *any* miscommunication, I'll sit right here all aquiver until you get back with the links to where I actually *said* [that "police had to give a 6th amendment warning on the street...."]...

You know. actual links to real, entire quotes, not your amazing mind reading ability to paraphrase what I must have meant.

Normally I wouldn't insist on a explicit quote and would allow for reasonable interpretation, but you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite by failing to hold yourself up to the standard you hold others?

 

[varwoche]

Funny that you cannot cite text for your assertion that I made such a claim.

Apparently you don't understand his/her rules of evidence, counseler. You see, it may have been a non-post that lies at the crux of the issue. Get with the program.

crimresearch
When people were called N****rs with the asterisk removed here at JREF, it didn't draw a single complaint from Varwoche, or Patrick, or Suddenly

 

[shanek]

Standard Shanek fraud...to label my posting of factual information as an attack on him, and then to flip-flop about what he said,

I didn't flip-flop, liar. I specifically said US national banks in the challenge I quoted. And NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOU, said anything like, "Hey, you didn't say national banks before!" or anything like that until many posts later where I cited the exact statute. THAT was when people started accusing me of flip-flopping, AFTER they had been proven to be WRONG.

 

[shanek]

Funny that you cannot cite text for your assertion that I made such a claim.

He never can, it seems. He just makes these wild claims about what people have said.

 

[Suddenly]

I didn't flip-flop, liar. I specifically said US national banks in the challenge I quoted. And NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOU, said anything like, "Hey, you didn't say national banks before!" or anything like that until many posts later where I cited the exact statute. THAT was when people started accusing me of flip-flopping, AFTER they had been proven to be WRONG.

How about just going back to the thread and posting something like the following:

Yes. You were right and I am wrong. State banks do not need to join the Fed, so the claim I may have made offhand that "all" banks must join the Fed is incorrect. I am also incorrect as it has come to my attention that there are banks in Egypt that likewise are not required to join. Not to mention in all those hard to spell former Soviet Republics.

That I later clairified that I meant all Federal banks, I admit that this was really an underhanded attempt to fool everyone rather than just to clarify what I thought was a bit obvious, that when discussing a federal body that I was referring to federal banks. While confusion over the latter is understandable, I feel great shame over the pain I have caused by my failure to fully admit to my part in this tragic episode that has been the subject of so many threads in trying to pass off my abysmal ignorance ( I really thought Egyptian banks had to join the Fed) as a mere misunderstanding based in my assumption of context.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't flip-flop, liar. I specifically said US national banks in the challenge I quoted. And NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOU, said anything like, "Hey, you didn't say national banks before!" or anything like that until many posts later where I cited the exact statute. THAT was when people started accusing me of flip-flopping, AFTER they had been proven to be WRONG.

It's time for me to call you out, son. You claimed that ALL banks were FORCED to join the Fed. It was only later, after I corrected you, that you changed your tune.

But we'll make it easy. We'll call it the "$1000 Little Shanek(tm) Challenge". And here's how it will work:

I will bet you $1000 dollars, payable to the JREF, that you made the original claim that all banks were "forced" to join the Federal Reserve. It was only after I corrected you, that you modified your claim to correctly state that only National Banks were required to join. But the problem is, you claim that was your position all along.

So now it is time to bring it to an end. Are you man enough to take the "$1000 Little Shanek(tm) Challenge"? If I am correct, then you write a check to JREF for $1000. If I am wrong, then I write the check.

You are a pseudo-skeptic, and everyone here knows it. But now the spotlight is on you. For once in your life, be a man. Take the challenge. You claim to love the JREF. So I'm sure you would like to see them get $1000.

(Note to everyone else: There are 3 possible outcomes to this challenge:

1: Little Shanek(tm) will ignore the challenge.
2: Little Shanek(tm) will acknowledge it, but dismiss it and not participate.
3: Little Shanek(tm) will accept the challenge, but upon losing will refuse to pay up.

I'm betting on #1.)

 

[Art Vandelay]

LegalPenguin

Again, I don't see the error as anything to worry about, as it is usually an obscure difference that happened to be quite relevant to the origninal thread in that the difference is the core reason for the Supreme Court's ruling in Fellers. The only reason I bring it up is the irony w/r/t the hounding of shanek and the accusations that he just runs away. )

If you want a more clear example of his legal ineptitude, there's the time when I said that if the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant can do no more than simply deny being at the crime scene, and the jury is obligated to find him not guilty (or the defendant can just say nothing at all). He then said that denying being at the crime scene constitutes an "alibi" defense, and so the burden of proof lies with the defendant. I'm not sure whether he simply has no understanding of legal principles, or he deliberately misrepresents the law just to disagree with people.

 

[Suddenly]

It's time for me to call you out, son. You claimed that ALL banks were FORCED to join the Fed. It was only later, after I corrected you, that you changed your tune.

But we'll make it easy. We'll call it the "$1000 Little Shanek(tm) Challenge". And here's how it will work:

I will bet you $1000 dollars, payable to the JREF, that you made the original claim that all banks were "forced" to join the Federal Reserve. It was only after I corrected you, that you modified your claim to correctly state that only National Banks were required to join. But the problem is, you claim that was your position all along.

So now it is time to bring it to an end. Are you man enough to take the "$1000 Little Shanek(tm) Challenge"? If I am correct, then you write a check to JREF for $1000. If I am wrong, then I write the check.

You are a pseudo-skeptic, and everyone here knows it. But now the spotlight is on you. For once in your life, be a man. Take the challenge. You claim to love the JREF. So I'm sure you would like to see them get $1000.

(Note to everyone else: There are 3 possible outcomes to this challenge:

1: Little Shanek(tm) will ignore the challenge.
2: Little Shanek(tm) will acknowledge it, but dismiss it and not participate.
3: Little Shanek(tm) will accept the challenge, but upon losing will refuse to pay up.

I'm betting on #1.)

I dunno. If we just go by the thread shanek linked to it appears that early on he makes a comment that all banks were forced to join the Fed. Then you challenged him, and he then more clearly stated the claim specifically referring to Federal banks.

However, there was no real evidence presented against his claim at that point in that thread, rather just a challenge... so I'm not so sure this equals a "correction..." It wasn't until MJK posted after the restatement that any actual evidence that only federal banks are forced to join.

Unless I'm missing something...