• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Case: Arrested for OC, "scaring people", loses in court

C

Carpetbagger

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
93
Location
Hanover County, Virginia, ,
imported post

dang wrote:

If Hankt thinks Grtshnav is paranoid then your not paying attention ol boy. Please read the U.S. Constitution, article one, section two . It reads "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;" . If this nations population is three hundred million that means we should have a U.S. Hous of Rep. of ten thousand. If we only have four hundred thirty five members then, we only have 4.35 % of what the constitution calls for.
Click to expand...


The quoted language sets a limit ("shall not exceed"), not a requirement. It would be a requirement if it read "The number of representatives shall be one for every thirty thousand...."
 
R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

dang wrote:

If Hankt thinks Grtshnav is paranoid then your not paying attention ol boy. Please read the U.S. Constitution, article one, section two . It reads "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;" . If this nations population is three hundred million that means we should have a U.S. Hous of Rep. of ten thousand. If we only have four hundred thirty five members then, we only have 4.35 % of what the constitution calls for.

Now the kicker is when you read Article one, Section five, "and a Majority of each(house and senate) shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide." Now this leaves us with an unlawful congress because they are operating without a quorum.

This wizardry has been in effect since a Democratic house, a Republican senate and a Democtatic president passed public law 62-5 ( the constitution can only be changed with an amendment or convention to the constitution)making the size of the house a permanet 435.This law passed in 1911 to be effective in 1913. Population of USA 94 million. So you can see we do not have a republic but an Oligarchy .

This means congress has passed no law or amendment since 1913. By studing the history of congress and the supreme court you find how they have tricked the American public with word games,blue smoke and mirrors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

Dang
Click to expand...
What the HELL does this have to do with the Spencer case, or for that matter anything about the subject of this thread?????
 
D

dang

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
38
Location
, ,
imported post

soo if it's 29999 your out of luck for getting a rep. for the house . Now we see how thethe crookspulled this off?Just mince,twist and torture words to cover up thier crooked act.
 
j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

dang wrote:
soo if it's 29999 your out of luck for getting a rep. for the house . Now we see how thethe crookspulled this off?Just mince,twist and torture words to cover up thier crooked act.
Click to expand...
No, what it means is that you cannot have more than one rep per 30,000 people. It has nothing to do with fewer people nor more reps. If you have 3,000,000 people you could still have just the one rep. If you have 30,001, you could have 2 reps or just the one.
 
A

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

The fact that this was "dang"'s first post says something. Dang, no offense, but your logic's a little screwed up. As pointed out earlier, that wording sets an upper limit on the number of representatives per X number of people, not a lower limit.

Second, if you want to post something like that, please try posting it somewhere relevant - in the middle of a completely separate topic about a local court case is not a good example.
 
shad0wfax

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

kenshin wrote:
The distinction was made in State v. Casad, an as yet unpublished case and therefore cannot be used in court as precedent but it does show how another court would most likely rule.
Click to expand...
This statement is partially true. Since it is unpublished (and never will be published, as it established no new precedent) you are correct that in cannot be cited in court.


However it absolutely does not show how another court would most likely rule on the manner of carry of a longarm. Any court can rule contrary to Casad on this point and be 100% within their law and suffer no repercussions. Ruling contrary to Spencer or Terry (which Casad mentions) however, would land a court in hot water and would almost guarantee an appeal.
 
Batousaii

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

.... Also, having read the case, i believe he at one point had taken it off his shoulder and was walking briskly, head down with hoodie up, and had the AK-47 at the ready (i.e. Hands on pistol-grip and fore-grip), and that was ultimately what the court acknowledged as "warranting alarm". YES, I KNOW IT IS NOT PUBLISHED, but i wanted to make sure that little bit was clarified as per our topic here.

- again, please correct me if i am wrong about his carrying at ready, going from memory here.

Bat.
 
T

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

Batousaii wrote:
.... Also, having read the case, i believe he at one point had taken it off his shoulder and was walking briskly, head down with hoodie up, and had the AK-47 at the ready (i.e. Hands on pistol-grip and fore-grip), and that was ultimately what the court acknowledged as "warranting alarm". YES, I KNOW IT IS NOT PUBLISHED, but i wanted to make sure that little bit was clarified as per our topic here.

- again, please correct me if i am wrong about his carrying at ready, going from memory here.

Bat.
Click to expand...
The case you are referring to is State v. Spencer. That case is published.
 
shad0wfax

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
Batousaii wrote:
.... Also, having read the case, i believe he at one point had taken it off his shoulder and was walking briskly, head down with hoodie up, and had the AK-47 at the ready (i.e. Hands on pistol-grip and fore-grip), and that was ultimately what the court acknowledged as "warranting alarm". YES, I KNOW IT IS NOT PUBLISHED, but i wanted to make sure that little bit was clarified as per our topic here.

- again, please correct me if i am wrong about his carrying at ready, going from memory here.

Bat.
Click to expand...
The case you are referring to is State v. Spencer. That case is published.
Click to expand...
Correct. Oddly enough, Spencer is cited in Casad, as is Terry.
 
Dave_pro2a

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

bugly wrote:
Better put my $.02 in... I CAN PEE FARTHER THAN YOU CAN!!!!!!
Seriously, it really doesn't matter what WE think. All cases in law are weighed individually and are decided as to who has the better delivery of the argument, period.
This bickering back and forth is just like a school playground and is getting nothing resolved.
"Laws" are written the way they are written so there is always an argument available. Try reading some, they're all vague.
Click to expand...

+1. It keeps lawyers in paychecks

Not surprising it's designed that way, since many elected officials making the laws are lawyers, and the judges are lawyers...

paranoid-cat.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top