Questions for 911files about his research

[dtugg]

What are you doing on this thread, Turbofan? Shouldn't you be pounding out the flightpath that is consistent with CIT witnesses and proven possible using math?

 

[DGM]

Ron "pomeroo" Weick doesnt seem to think Balsamo is a fraud.




By the way Beachnut, why didnt you step up to the plate to debate P4T that night? Oh, thats right, you claimed there is nothing to debate. But yet you spent the whole night behind your screen on JREF doing just that, like you do everyday.

Bottom line, Rob Balsamo and the numerous aviation professionals at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core can be verified as such at faa.gov. You and your so-called 'experts' cannot. Who exactly is the "fraud"?

If you don't mind me asking. When can we expect your experts to make any kind of mark in the aviation world with their "research". I think I must have missed the repercussions from the huge impact that they've had so far. Could you direct me to these "accomplishments"?

 

[Drudgewire]

Ron said he was civil. You don't have to be uncivil to be a fraud. CIT simply happens to be both. v

v

Incidentally 911files guy, where does Craig claim to have gotten consent? Certainly not in the OCW article unless I missed it. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the madness of the responses page but I only could get about four CIT rants in before starting to fiend for abysnthe to work my way back towards some semblence of reality.

 

[dtugg]

Ron said he was civil. You don't have to be uncivil to be a fraud. CIT simply happens to be both. v[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gif[/qimg]v

Incidentally 911files guy, where does Craig claim to have gotten consent? Certainly not in the OCW article unless I missed it. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the madness of the responses page but I only could get about four CIT rants in before starting to fiend for abysnthe to work my way back towards some semblence of reality.

In this thread at the LCF. Of course, we should believe what Craig says because he is such a super honest guy.

 

[BCR]

Incidentally 911files guy, where does Craig claim to have gotten consent? Certainly not in the OCW article unless I missed it. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the madness of the responses page but I only could get about four CIT rants in before starting to fiend for abysnthe to work my way back towards some semblence of reality.

I have not seen it for myself Drudgewire, that is what the investigator told me. Contrary to CIT belief, I don't waste my time over there and like you, can't get far in the madness when I do go over. So what page or thread he was looking at I could not tell you, but I believe it was on the CIT forum.

 

[beachnut]

Ron "pomeroo" Weick doesnt seem to think Balsamo is a fraud.




By the way Beachnut, why didnt you step up to the plate to debate P4T that night? Oh, thats right, you claimed there is nothing to debate. But yet you spent the whole night behind your screen on JREF doing just that, like you do everyday.

Bottom line, Rob Balsamo and the numerous aviation professionals at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core can be verified as such at faa.gov. You and your so-called 'experts' cannot. Who exactly is the "fraud"?

How do you debate pure dirt dumb stupid ideas like 77 did not hit the Pentagon? You have no alternative for the damage, no way to refute the DNA data, no understanding of the FDR, not a clue what the NTSB did, no clue what the FAA did, no clue what happen. Your group of failed 9/11 idea pilots have zero theories!

I am waiting for your evidence. 7 years, no evidence. Debate that you FDR non-expert hiding behind implications of lies you adopt as fact.

How can you debate Balsamo? He has no expertise in anything except 11.2 G bad physics. He can't even correct that page. How can he make rational debate when he said he will gladly kill me when 9/11 truth wins? His bans all who tell the truth at p4tf. Check it out, all that is left are people who believe idiot ideas on 9/11.

Balsamo has all my FAA information; so your are wrong about the faceless stuff; proven wrong again.

Oops, let me check; I do have a face.

but I can't find the seat pin... oops - like the flag? We had no FDR in the tweet ...

Balsamo experts do not have evidence to support his implications of lies, non-flight paths, and silly 11.2 G physics. Zero expert can mount any support for Balsamo's ideas on 9/11; failed ideas.


Why is Farmer able to do research and then understand Balsamo is a fraud? Why is there only one real 9/11 truther? There can be only one?


The p4t news releases have been a failure! So what do you have after 7 years, no theories, just a pilot who is so paranoid and ignorant on a broad range of topics, he resorts to distorting the truth so he can sell junk ideas on the internet and run a forum where he is the "9/11 truth NAZI" banning those who question his failed ideas.

I love the 11.2 G physics! A great example of failed math cached for posterity; you can show your children's children the failed math of Balsamo and either explain how you recovered from believing terminally stupid ideas, or how to mess up math and be just like Balsamo. The choice is yours; gain knowledge and pursue sound judgment, or follow Balsamo further down the pit of ignorance on 9/11.

 

[Turbofan]

I said it at least twice this thread, but since you only see and hear what you want to and that rarely has anything to do with reality, I'll say it again:

Using the Internet to claim legal knowledge is a VERY dangerous game, especially considering how much money has been lost by REAL legal experts who thought they understood the wording of the law.

CFR TITLE 18: PART I: CHAPTER 119: § 2511(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

Federal Wiretapping Law of 1968. Look it up "critical thinker" (who takes Farmer at his word regarding an "investigator" and thinks it means a badge)

This is why there is so much controversy currently over Federal Wiretapping of Americans without any party consent, due to, you guessed it, 9/11.

Drudge, you're not very good at this...

 

[Drudgewire]

In this thread at the LCF. Of course, we should believe what Craig says because he is such a super honest guy.

"Above reproach." "Salt of the earth." "A scholar and a gentleman."

Oh sorry, I was watching a documentary on Ron Jeremy. Who were were talking about again?

 

[LashL]

..when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

This is not accurate.

If he recorded it in California, that's where the law was broken. It doesn't have to be deferred to the feds simply because that's where the other end of the conversation was coming from

This is accurate.

1. Federal Law requires only one party consent. Being the call happened across state lines, you're clear under Federal Law.

This is not accurate.

2. Although it is advised (read: not mandatory) to apply the state with the more strict law, Case Law provides direction that the law applied is shown to be the one from the state in which the "injured" resides. In laymens terms, Farmer is SOL here since he resides in TN which requires only one party consent

This is not accurate. See below.

See here from the same link that Wildcat didnt bother reading...
In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the woman’s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)

This case is not on point in any way, shape or form with the matter currently under discussion, and is wholly inapplicable. The case you cited was a libel action, not a prosecution under a state penal code.

In other words, the one party consent rule was applied. Even though it screwed the prosecutions case.

This is not accurate. There was no prosecutor. It was a civil action.

In the case i quoted above (more similar to Farmers 'case' and right above the one you misinterepreted on the link), the law was applied in the state of the "injured". it will be interesting to see if the Orange Country Prosecutor applies CA law and CA taxpayer money to protect a resident/cry baby in TN. Especially since he cannot prove "injury".

This is not accurate. The case you cited is not at all similar to the matter currently under discussion, and while conflicts of law are often at issue in civil litigation, they are rarely an issue in criminal/penal law. In civil actions, there are numerous considerations about the appropriate jurisdiction for an action and numerous considerations about which jurisdiction's law to apply in matters where cross-jurisdictional issues arise. But in criminal/penal matters, the location where an alleged offence occurs is the appropriate jurisdiction. If offences occurred in the matter presently under discussion, the location of the offences is the place where a surreptitious recording was made in violation of the California penal code, and the place where publishing of such intercepted material took place in violation of the California penal code.

First thing that needs to be done is to prove injury.

This is not accurate.

Next thing to ask - where does the injured reside?

This is not accurate.

Then, which law protects such "injured"?

This is not accurate.

Then if the prosecutor does feel he wants to use CA taxpayer money to protect a TN resident, he has to ask was there consent?

The prosecutor's duty is to uphold the laws of California, without regard to where the alleged victim of the crime perpetrated by a California resident happens to live.

The fact the phone call has been published for more than 6 months and Farmer is just now reporting it, does not bode well for Farmers case.

The length of time that it has been published really has no bearing on the matter unless there is a statutory limitation period on the offence under California law, particularly if the person complaining was not aware of the existence of the recording until recently. Even if there is a prescribed limitation period, there is also the matter of discoverability, which often operates to extend a limitation period in various circumstances.

You seem to be confusing and conflating the California Penal Code (public law) with civil actions (private law) and mistakenly thinking that they are interchangeable. They are not.

In short:

If you live in a one-party-consent state, and you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it without the consent of other parties to the conversation.

If you live in an all-party-consent state, such as California, it is illegal for you to record a conversation to which you are a party without the consent of all parties. It is also illegal for you to publish the recording that you obtained without consent. (See California Penal Code, in particular, sections 631 and 632)

 

[Turbofan]

How do you debate pure dirt dumb stupid ideas like 77 did not hit the Pentagon?

Why do you spend everyday doing just that on the JREF?

You have no alternative for the damage,

Not our burden to offer a theory. It is up to the govt to prove theirs.

no way to refute the DNA data,

We never refuted it nor did we embrace it. We dont find the word of the govt as gospel like you. So far, the govt refuses to provide DNA records and chain of custody.

no understanding of the FDR

Said the anonymous man from behind his screen who refuses to call L3 and the NTSB and inform them they are wrong regarding impact time and altitude plot.

not a clue what the NTSB did

See above reply

Debate that you FDR non-expert hiding behind implications of lies you adopt as fact.

English please...

He can't even correct that page.

You may want to check the page as its been corrected for months. You even debated it a few times (the corrections), must have slipped your mind, 'senior moment' like Farmer i suppose. Im not surprised you dont source your claims though as you'll readily expose such lies to your lurkers. So i'll do it for you...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

How can he make rational debate when he said he will gladly kill me when 9/11 truth wins?

Flat out lie and you will never be able to quote it. Please quote Rob Balsamo saying he will kill Beachnut when "9/11 truth wins"! Why do you lie so much Beachnut?

His bans all who tell the truth at p4tf.

Im an admin at P4T forum. You refuse to sign up. You been invited many times. Its clear you cannot debate without lies, libel and personal attacks, perhaps that is why you refuse to sign up and realize you'll be banned for such a debate style?

Balsamo has all my FAA information; so your are wrong about the faceless stuff; proven wrong again.

All we have is a name you claim to be which you refuse to post publicly. Since you have been caught in so many lies, who is to say this isnt another?

Oops, let me check; I do have a face.

Yeah, lots of pilot images on google.. I can do that too.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=pilot&gbv=2

Can you guess which is me?

the rest of your post is the same ol BS.

Hugs and kisses to you Beachnut. Try not to have so much hate in your soul, it shortens life span.

 

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

You sure its someone with a badge? Or do you just take Farmers word for it Although he never mentioned a Detective, for all you know it could be a private investigator, or none at all. Farmer is prone to lying and contradictions. Listen to the call Are you a critical thinker?

I have not seen where Farmer seems to have lied. Could you please point this out? While you are at it tell me how he has "contradicted" himself.

Just a hint; saying that he used to be a truther is not contradicting yourself it's realizing you're wrong.

 

[Drudgewire]

So of all the quotes the resident LAWYER responded to, he only said "this is accurate" one time.

Excuse me. Victory dance time.

 

[Turbofan]

This is not accurate.


If you live in an all-party-consent state, such as California, it is illegal for you to record a conversation to which you are a party without the consent of all parties. It is also illegal for you to publish the recording that you obtained without consent. (See California Penal Code, in particular, sections 631 and 632)

Thanks for your input LashL. I'll guess we'll see what happens in court.

By the way, i see by your avatar you live in Toronto. Ever practice law in the US?

 

[Myriad]

This is not accurate.


This is accurate.


This is not accurate.


This is not accurate. See below.


This case is not on point in any way, shape or form with the matter currently under discussion, and is wholly inapplicable. The case you cited was a libel action, not a prosecution under a state penal code.


This is not accurate. There was no prosecutor. It was a civil action.


This is not accurate. The case you cited is not at all similar to the matter currently under discussion, and while conflicts of law are often at issue in civil litigation, they are rarely an issue in criminal/penal law. In civil actions, there are numerous considerations about the appropriate jurisdiction for an action and numerous considerations about which jurisdiction's law to apply in matters where cross-jurisdictional issues arise. But in criminal/penal matters, the location where an alleged offence occurs is the appropriate jurisdiction. If offences occurred in the matter presently under discussion, the location of the offences is the place where a surreptitious recording was made in violation of the California penal code, and the place where publishing of such intercepted material took place in violation of the California penal code.


This is not accurate.


This is not accurate.


This is not accurate.


The prosecutor's duty is to uphold the laws of California, without regard to where the alleged victim of the crime perpetrated by a California resident happens to live.


The length of time that it has been published really has no bearing on the matter unless there is a statutory limitation period on the offence under California law, particularly if the person complaining was not aware of the existence of the recording until recently. Even if there is a prescribed limitation period, there is also the matter of discoverability, which often operates to extend a limitation period in various circumstances.

You seem to be confusing and conflating the California Penal Code (public law) with civil actions (private law) and mistakenly thinking that they are interchangeable. They are not.

In short:

If you live in a one-party-consent state, and you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it without the consent of other parties to the conversation.

If you live in an all-party-consent state, such as California, it is illegal for you to record a conversation to which you are a party without the consent of all parties. It is also illegal for you to publish the recording that you obtained without consent. (See California Penal Code, in particular, sections 631 and 632)

Now that's Legaltainment™!

Under the circumstances, I'll refrain from offering my own opinion on the matter, and instead pass along (via Turbofan, if he'll be good enough to convey it, or to CIT directly if they read this thread) the only advice it would be ethical for me to give:

Get a good lawyer.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jhunter1163]

I get all quivery when Lash uses her lawyer voice.

 

[jhunter1163]

So of all the quotes the resident LAWYER responded to, he only said "this is accurate" one time.

Excuse me. Victory dance time.

[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoopyDance.gif[/qimg]

[nitpick]

FYI, Lash is a woman.

[/nitpick]

 

[Myriad]

I don't know, the investigator seem rather pissed that they did the same thing to a Federal Officer.

Quoted for emphasis, in reference to my previous post.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Turbofan]

By the way, does anyone know if the "prostitute" or Globe International was prosecuted by PA for violating their recording/consent laws? According to LashL, they should have been prosecuted. I havent been able to turn up anything, yet.

 

[Drudgewire]

[nitpick]

FYI, Lash is a woman.

[/nitpick]

I KNEW that.

Well, the victory dance has been downgraded from "Snoopy" to "Snoop Dogg."

 

[~enigma~]

So of all the quotes the resident LAWYER responded to, he only said "this is accurate" one time.

Excuse me. Victory dance time.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoopyDance.gif

SHE.