“When A Stranger Calls… or Emails.”

Well, I got another email today from what seems to be another law enforcement officer. As you recall, the last one was from a police chief, and is posted on this blog as the article “You’ve Got Mail.”

So, just as before with that article, I ask that any comments on this article be kept civil and for the purpose of discussion and education, not name calling or ad hominem attacks.

Here it is just as I received it, and my response just as I sent it.


Dear Eddie:

Just listened to some video where you are encouraging drivers to not provide paperwork when involved in a car stop. I’m not sure how you are interpreting the law, but driving a car is not a right. Before you can drive a car you are required to take a test, get a license and follow VTL requirements. As part of that driving privilege you are also required to provide proof of driving privilege to those sworn to uphold the laws of the community you are driving in. Otherwise none of us would bother getting licenses and paying fees and when we got stopped just say “sorry officer,  I’m not giving you anything including my name and there is nothing you can do” and drive away unimpeded. If we DID get stopped and arrested it would be a false arrest and we’d all be rich. Also, I don’t know about Texas, but in my state a summons in given in lieu of arrest. So if you are stopped for a vehicle infraction and fail to produce identification to prove you have a right to operate your vehicle you will be arrested for the infraction and finger printed to determine your true identity.

I’m not sure if you are one of these sovereign citizens, but it is irresponsible of you to give people misinformation which will lead them into more trouble than they are in. As a former law enforcement officer you should be aware that vehicle stops are one of the most dangerous situations a cop can be in and for you to teach people to raise tension and exacerbate the situation to make a buck selling your classes is irresponsible and unconscionable.

Thank you


Hello, and thank you for the email.

Having received many like it over the years, I will try to be brief in my response, which is difficult considering the various levels of disinformation upon which your premise and arguments are founded.

Therefore, while I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this subject, I can only hope that you will follow suit and be willing to listen to mine. Many of which you can read about and try to understand by going to my legal blog and reading the articles that I have written and posted there upon numerous subjects and areas of law. I will provide the web site address at the end of this reply. As an FYI, I usually take emails of this sort and re-post them to my blog as an article so that others may learn from them and see the kind of mindset that is prevalent in the good ‘ol U.S. of A. these days. Also, I do not edit the original email or publish anyone’s email address.

The history of America and the rights of the people are the first hindrances to your arguments, just as it has been to those before you.

The people have always had the right to freely move about the various states without government approval or monitoring of any kind, and they still do. The fact that a particular few that control the laws and government are trying to create the perception that this right never existed notwithstanding.

For example, changes in technology over time don’t make alterations to the rights of the people because of technological advances or regressions.  If you think they do, then please tell me what the inventions are that you think are responsible for rewriting the Bill of Rights and make the people lesser as the rightful heirs of those rights?

In our history, and long antecedent to that, throughout world history, the people have always traveled about by whatever means they could afford to have available to them, whether that be by foot, ship, wagon, horseback, chariot, etc. As technology progressed to “motor cars” the same held true.  The People were absolutely free to purchase and use the newly invented “motor car” for its intended purpose upon the public right-of-way, which was to travel further and faster than they could with a horse or wagon. They couldn’t be required to have a license or anything else, because they were, and still are, a free people.

Now, fast forward to today. The various administrative agencies in every state have worked tirelessly to create legislation that uses terminology and phrasing that makes it appear that these rights no longer exist, or ever did. This is demonstrably false by simply studying the historical record of these facts, which email shows that you have not actually done. You are instead simply parroting what you have been told your whole life with little to no effort on your part to verify and affirm the information and facts for yourself.

As for myself, however, I have done the exact opposite. I have read, researched, studied, and then read and researched and studied some more to reach the conclusions that I have, that we the People are being defrauded and lied to by those that are supposed to serve us and protect our rights. The laws neither actually read nor mean what you and all others like you have been led to believe that they do. This is by design.

Administrative agencies can only remain in place as long as they serve a legitimate purpose.  What better way to ensure your own job security than to alter the laws to make it appear that society cannot function without you and your agency?  How is this possible you are asking? Rather simply. Every department of government in every State of the union has been seized by the National and State Bar Associations. Attorneys, have complete and utter control of the judicial branch of government.  Not a single office of any power within the judicial department of any state government can be held one of the People unless they are a member of these organizations. If you were to give it any honest consideration, you must admit that this is true.

It is also true that these attorneys have major power or majority control in the other departments of government as well. Which makes this all rather easy and convenient, don’t you think? They write the laws, they adjudicate those laws, and they write the policies and procedures for administrative and law enforcement agencies telling them how to enforce them and such.  However, they don’t tell these agencies everything that is in the law, or how to actually understand it if they bother to even read it for themselves.

As a former deputy sheriff, I felt that I had a duty to fully understand the laws I was being commanded and coerced into applying to the People. Especially when my knowledge, understanding, and experience led me to believe that some of those laws were actually violating rights in how they were written and being applied. One such case is the one you raised about the State law requiring people to waive their protected right to remain silent so as to comply with the production of something associated with a privilege that you are actually only assuming that they are engaging in. This is a legal impossibility, as you cannot be compelled to testify or produce any evidence that could be used against you in a court of law or to potentially incriminate you in some way of which you may not even be aware.

The United States Supreme Court ruled long ago that a statute simply cannot require the waiver of any protected right in order to comply with a privilege statute that makes the right conditional in its availability or exercise. If you really think about it, that such a statutory requirement is or could be valid, then the Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing, as the administrative agency need only convince the Legislature to write a law that outlaws the invocation and protection of those rights by any individual or group. In other words, such legislation would be inherently and unavoidably unconstitutional, which it is unless you can prove there exists a knowing and consensual waiver of the protected right, which doesn’t actually exist under the conditions and circumstances that currently apply within the States.

Now, Texas has the same laws here as those you described, which is not unusual considering that almost every State of the union utilizes the very same National Bar Association Standards on the writing and construction of laws, so as to make them more uniform throughout the several States. However, unlike yourself, I have literally spent years studying every aspect of those specific laws and procedures, their history, and the original legislative intent at the time of their creation. My conclusions have come down to the facts and evidence that prove that a massive fraud has been and still is being perpetrated upon the People of Texas, and every other State, by our own government. All of which is being done in the name of revenue.  It is not about public safety at all. It is entirely about generating revenue, monitoring, tracking, and controlling of the entire population.

Again, think about all of the things you are told you are required to do when you have a “license” if you wish to remain “legal.” Things like, keep your personal information, such as name, DOB, and address, current at all times with the administrative agency; comply with all rules and regulations of the administrative agency; transfer your “privilege” from one agency to another if you relocate, and then follow the same procedures there for monitoring and tracking; etc., etc., etc.

Then there is the matter of the statutory schemes themselves, which are worded with the intention of deceiving the reader into thinking and believing one thing, while the actual context and overall statutory scheme itself tells a true researcher and studier of its entirety a totally different story. This too is by design and specific intent.

The statutes you speak of regulate a particular class of profession and occupation, the business of “transportation,” which is the movement of passengers, goods, or property upon the land by a carrier for compensation or hire.  They have absolutely nothing to do with the general public that is simply traveling for their own private business or pleasure upon the public right-of-way. Did it escape you that it is called the RIGHT-of-way for a reason? Could that reason be because the public has always had an absolute right to access and use the public right-of-way for their own personal business and pleasure without State interference or prohibition?

The People have a right to access and use the public right-of-way for their own private business and pleasure, but not as a place of business. THAT is the actual privilege, the business use. THAT is what requires licensing, registration, insurance, inspection, and everything else that you are assuming applies to everyone in a car. It doesn’t.  Business use = privilege.  PRIVATE use = RIGHT of use. You cannot really understand or argue anything at all about the subject of “transportation” until you are willing to examine into and truly understand those distinctions. If you do, then you would be arguing entirely out of an ignorant, un-researched, and unstudied personal belief and opinion, not fact or law. I only use fact and law, rarely opinion, and then, only if the opinion is based upon a single level of logical inference that can be derived from the existing facts and evidence. Is that what you used to construct your original email to me, or did you only use your opinion on what you think the laws and courts have actually said upon this subject?

One thing about your email that I found amusing was this where you wrote, “Otherwise none of us would bother getting licenses and paying fees and when we got stopped just say “sorry officer,  I’m not giving you anything including my name and there is nothing you can do” and drive away unimpeded. If we DID get stopped and arrested it would be a false arrest and we’d all be rich.”[sic]  What amused me was the fact that you stated all of this as if it were actually some sort of problem rather than precisely how it actually ought to be and work. If an officer has no authority to stop you in the first place, then why do you perceive that this is not a perfectly acceptable response and action?  Why should we be forced under threat of violence and punitive sanctions to get a bunch of licenses and pay a bunch of fees to do something that we already and have always had every individual right to do?  Why is it that you either don’t want, won’t accept, or don’t believe, that these rights have existed and are rightfully ours to exercise? Why do you think that the government is the true owner of the roads and not the People? Isn’t government just our elected and appointed caretakers to watch over, protect, and maintain our public property that we all have a right to access and use freely?  If not, then please try and explain to ne why you don’t think so.

There is much more to it than that small smattering of things of course, as this is but one of many links in the chain you must follow to actually begin understanding the deception that is playing out right in front of us. My legal blog will fill in more links of the chain for you, if you take the time and make the effort to read and understand it.

What you think you know about this subject simply isn’t true. You simply believe that it is, and the courts and attorneys work very hard to ensure that your perception and understanding of this remains exactly where it is and where they want it. This is what gives them power over you, me, all of us.  Convince everyone that theirs is the only true reality and then let them enforce it against each other on their own.

I simply haven’t the time or space here to teach all that I know on this subject. Nor do I have any desire to explain to you your misinformation on the alphabet-agency created nomenclature of “sovereign citizen,” which is intended to do nothing more than immediately apply a stigma of credibility to all upon whom it is slathered with a very broad, ill-informed, and uneducated brush. But if it eases your mind, no, I don’t call or consider myself a “sovereign citizen.” I am absolutely no different than you in most respects, though with some obvious differences.  For instance, I no longer accept anything a governmental entity or employ tells me at face value. I research and verify everything. And more often than not, I have proven that agency or employee to be incorrect in almost every respect and point, making them totally incompetent in their job.

All of my information is based entirely upon the law, court opinions, and historical documentation, not just my imagination like so many that are discussing and providing information in subjects like this one these days. What that means is, you can personally verify everything that I put forth for others to consume for education and study. In fact, I plead with people constantly to never simply take my word about anything I say. I implore them to look it all up for themselves and verify it through their own reading and understanding. I would ask that you take the time and effort to do the same.

Therefore, what is more irresponsible and unconscionable in your estimation, a law enforcement officer that actually understands little to nothing about the conflicts and threats to our individual rights that exist between the laws that s/he is enforcing, but who is insisting that they are doing everything right despite that lack of knowledge and understanding; a criminally corrupt court system that refuses to play by its own rules or follow the law as written so as to ensure that this massive fraud upon the American People and all of its associated crimes never becomes known to the public or allows us to hold those responsible for it accountable; having your rights stolen away by legislation that has no authority to take them, but is used as an excuse by the actors to use any level of force that they then deem necessary so as to protect themselves while destroying you, me, our children, or someone else? Is this your idea of responsible and conscionable?

Are you saying that these actions are more desirable and acceptable to you than the information that I put out there that serves to expose this massive fraudulent scam for what it is? Can you please tell me where it is written that our rights are not worth protecting simply because there is some inherent risk or danger in exercising and defending them from a corrupt system of government that would rather you, we, didn’t have them at all? Which seeks to undermine or destroy them further and further with each passing day? Can you please tell me how America came to be independent from England, or how we intend to remain a free and self-governing people, if such actions and ideas, and their associated risks, are just too unacceptable to contemplate or engage in in this modern day era in which we live? What, exactly, does freedom and liberty truly mean to you if you think that that scenario is how it is supposed to be?

I know none of this is something you might want or like to hear, but it is a fact that you are wholly ignorant and unqualified in what you do not know as well as what you think you know on this subject. You have swallowed the story without requiring any actual evidentiary proof and verification whatsoever. Which I totally understand as being rather hard to own up to if confronted and challenged on it, but it’s the truth nonetheless. However, you can make the effort to change that if you wish.

Again, thank you for the email, but you are mistaken in your understanding of the law and the facts of what is a right and what is a privilege.

The legal blog is here:  taooflaw.wordpress.com

Attorneys – Why shit doesn’t fall far from the ass of the pig.

If I were required to choose between the most dishonest professions, the choices being politicians, con-men, or attorneys, then I would choose attorneys as the hands down favorite.  And if it were a bet on a Blackjack table, I would double down if the attorney is also a politician. And it is actually redundant to explain why both are already con-men. But, if intellectual dishonesty is systemic, then the practice of law and law-making by attorneys is where it will be found by the truck load.

So, if we equivocate attorneys with actual pigs, which isn’t all that far of a stretch, and we assume that all attorneys talk out of their ass the majority of the time,  then we can further assume that their arguments are almost always shit, except when they are actually flatulence. But rarely, if not ever, will their arguments be considered a breath of fresh air.

Now, you might ask why I have a problem with attorneys. I guess it’s because I abhor stupidity, especially when it’s willful, while also despising intellectual dishonesty, also especially when it’s knowing and willful. Both of which attorneys exhibit in abundance. But as a real life example, I would like to show you a Facebook post that I made and some of the comments that were posted in relation to it. I’ll let you figure out which ones were actually made by a real-life attorney.

The post dealt with the Articles of Confederation and the actual unconstitutionality of the Constitution for the United States of America itself as being directly violative of those Articles.  This is the discussion that followed.

Eric Slafter

Eric Slafter Constitution was further only intially ratfied by 9 states. Which was enough only according to those who created it.

 Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
Jacob Crowell

Jacob Crowell · 3 mutual friends

Isn’t a confederacy an illegal act in blacks law, the same as a conspiracy ?
 Like · Reply · 13 hrs
Randall Dedert
 Randall Dedert did they repeal them?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 11 hrs
Brad Isley

 Brad Isley No they were never repealed, statehood would not exist without them.

 Unlike · Reply · 2 · 7 hrs
Johnny Gold

 Johnny Gold You should hop in your time machine, go back and set them straight.

 Like · Reply · 7 hrs
Johnny Gold

 Johnny Gold Article 4 Summary:

Elaborates upon the intent “to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union,” and to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.” All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was comitted.

Basically, it seems like states can do whatever they want, which in turn means their cops can do whatever they want. No thanks. I’ll take the bare-bones minimum protections offered to people under the bill of rights, the ADA, the FLSA and FMLA etc. before I’d turn back the clock to when there was zero accountability in terms of human rights.

 Like · Reply · 7 hrs · Edited
 Eric Slafter
 Eric Slafter The bill of rights was deemed unessisary by the creators of the constitution …. as even with the expansion of powers given by it. No authority to infringe said natural rights was given. So if they didn’t have the ability after it…. would it not be reasonable to think the colonial provional constitutions what ever they maybe would follow british bill of rights set in the magna carta. And no ability to infringe would be there either? M I ght have to look into it.


Tao Lauw

 Tao Lauw That’s a false premise Johnny. There was actually MORE accountability in every respect than there is at all today. A corrupt public official was IMMEDIATELY and bodily removed from office, publicly disgraced, and forced to leave town on a rail while covered in tar and feathers and all his property forfeited back to those in the community that his actions had harmed.

And if that public official was actually responsible for unlawfully causing someone’s death, then his sentence was to be publicly hung and all his property forfeited.

What you are forgetting is that in THOSE days, the people didn’t consider the state as something that could function in complete autonomy in ANY manner without their express approval, most especially where it involved their rights, lives and property.

Eric Slafter is correct that many of the founding fathers repulsed the idea of a Bill of Rights expressly because they believed that some ne’er do-well, under the guise of ‘legality’ would attempt to declare such a list as the ONLY rights the people actually held rather than an express limitation upon any and all powers of government to deprive the people of those rights without due process.

And it turns out that they were absolutely correct. Today, we have attorneys in every level of government making the argument that the people have no right to do X because the state or federal constitutions don’t specifically mention it as being a right. They completely ignore the clause that state’s the Bill of Rights is NOT in any way intended to limit any OTHER rights of the people or to remove any rights from them whatsoever.

Furthermore, the people have EVERY right to do ANYTHING that in itself does not arbitrarily, negligently or intentionally detrimentally affect the rights and property of another. Otherwise, our rights are LIMITLESS in EVERY respect. And despite the bullshit illegitimate opinions of various courts, the peoples rights ARE absolute in their right of free exercise EXCEPT under the circumstances I just mentioned OR when they must be surrendered in the interest of justice due to a conviction for having committed a violation of those same conditions.

So, I think I would MUCH rather have a community of people and the protections of that community that made it possible to directly control our public servants criminal behavior for fear of their own personal safety and property and in such a way that their criminal brethren in office could NOT protect and prevent them from receiving the justice that was due and owed them.

 Like · Reply · 3 · 3 hrs · Edited
Eric Slafter

Eric Slafter The constitution was meant to be read with the declaration of independence which itself being the founding document brought forward the idea that rights where inherent … and natural. And unalienable. And that gov. Only gain it’s just power from the consent of the goverened. Some how that last got twisted into implied consent by voteing for your masters. I might add an idea that many tories and loyalists prior found repugnant. Believing only the monarchy could bestow rights…. I belive Dickinson was one of the colonists that made such an argument.

 Unlike · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs · Edited
Johnny Gold

 Johnny Gold My premise is not false but rather firmly grounded in historical fact. The atrocity of slavery was permitted under the Articles of Confederation which you correctly observe required unanimous consent to amend. I don’t think any of the southern colonies would have voluntarily consented to the abolition of slavery. In fact, I seriously question whether some southern states today would give such consent voluntarily. Sorry Eddie, but I can’t support that. I’ll take my bogus Constitution over that any day. Let me know how that time machine is coming along.

 Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
Tao Lauw

 Tao Lauw Johnny Gold – Another bad starting point. The constitutional replacement made SPECIFIC exceptions IN FAVOR of slavery in relation to census counts and other points. It in no way whatsoever abolished it or signified disapproval of same at it’s inception.

It was not until MUCH later, AFTER the war, two in fact, AS WELL AS an amendment process, that it ever even mentioned the ending of slavery.

So, unless you are inferring that the founding fathers were given unanimous consent to abolish slavery, which you already admitted the southern colonies would NOT have approved of, then your premise MUST be false.

Otherwise, you are inferring that the constitutional convention, despite a lack of unanimous consent of all the colonies, was convened, at least in part, so that a select few could initially write the constitution with the future knowledge and intent of ending slavery. And this is despite the fact that many of those same men were slave owners.

Or are you inferring that they were relying upon a crystal ball at the constitutional convention?

If so, then I’m sorry, but the point of your argument is STILL false and off-point as the original inception of the constitution had no intention or predilection of addressing the issue of slavery.

 Like · Reply · 1 · 25 mins · Edited
Eric Slafter

Eric Slafter Thomas Jefferson as much as he didn’t like slavery was himself a slave holder. And the point was made and rejected outright to elminate slavery in the new constitution…

I might add slavery has not to this day been abolished. .. if you belive it has you need to reread the 13th amendment and what it in fact did. Which was simply change the decsion of ownership to the state.
As such this is why we have prisions for profit to this day. And why the jails conscript labor out to ge, and whirlpool for exports of washer and dryers at a rate of .34 cents an hour.
So your premise is flawed all the way around.

Johnny Gold

Johnny Gold So both of you admit that you support slavery. Good to know. Make a meme of that.

Tao Lauw

Tao Lauw Johnny Gold – And yet ANOTHER false assertion based upon a faulty premise and unsubstantiated by any facts or evidence whatsoever. An ACCURATE statement of facts and history is NOT the same thing as CONDONING anything that occurred in that period of history. Now you are simply trying to use knowingly false and uniquely attorney inspired trick arguments to make an equally invalid point.

Case in point, just when did you stop beating your wife or girlfriend? After all, you have completely failed to address the fact that the articles of confederation did not ALSO specifically prohibit wife/woman beating, so you MUST have supported it because you AREN’T trying to make any argument against it! Rather, you are simply arguing the specifics of what was written and what was actually done in relation to what was written, right?

 Like · Reply · 1 · 18 mins
Johnny Gold

Johnny Gold Eddie, I’n not the one advocating for a system that regarded slavery as lawful – you are. There are no attorney/Jedi mind tricks here – only your own words. It would seem you’d also support a system of government that would deny women and non-landowners the right to vote. If you want to turn back the clock then tou have to turn back all of it. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of this nation’s predecessor government you wish to embrace. You have to embrace all of it – and in the case of he Articles of Confederation that means embracing slavery and unequal rights for women. 😄

Eric Slafter

 Eric Slafter Johnny the argument to be made if someone was inclined to do so…and it latter was back them prior to the 13th amendment which technically legalized slavery.

Was if a person could be property. Or if by race a indvidual was not a person or human being…but an animal. The 13th amendment actually removed that argument and made it lawful to have slaves if it was punsihemnt. So are you arguing for slavery since your such a supporter of the current constitution. …lol

Johnny Gold
Johnny Gold Everyone is now stupider for having read that, Eric.
Eric Slafter
 Eric Slafter That is actually the facts

Eric Slafter

Eric Slafter Read the arguments in Congress before the cival war both for and against slavery.

 Like · Reply · 3 mins
Johnny Gold

Johnny Gold Eric, your grammar is atrocious and your spelling is even worse. Furthermore, arguments on the floor of the legislature are not law. It’s just a bunch of talking. The law is the law – and where there is a question, the law is what the courts say it is. The law is not what the distinguished gentleman from the state of wherever thinks it ought to be. This is government 101.

Eric Slafter

Eric SlafterWell then genius the question would under the constitution without the 13th amendment in regards to slavery would be what???? Who can deny life liberty exc…. by what power???

By the same notion who can take property under said constitution since slavery existed before it….Now when you figure that one out and can argue in both direction let me know…. Maybe then the light bulb will turn on for you….. as to why we needed a 13th amendment mr. Law is the law…..
Then try reading it. And you’ll come to terms with what you clearly don’t understand. Attacks on spelling and grammer aside.

Tao Lauw

Tao LauwJohnny Gold – “Eddie, I’n not the one advocating for a system that regarded slavery as lawful – you are.”

Again, yet ANOTHER misstatement of the facts to try and make your inaccurate and unsubstantiated argument that the Articles of Confederation were properly set aside despite the terms and conditions of the mutual compact that formed them look valid. Thus proving the falsity of your statement “.. there are no attorney/Jedi mind tricks here… .”

To say that an ACCURATE discussion of the various points of American history is the equivalent of advocacy for each and every aspect of the points of discussion is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also self-deprecating as a display of an extremely low level of intellectual comprehension.

To make such a claim is about as accurate an allegation as that of saying the mere discussion of who is the best bald or balding Hollywood actors is the equivalent of saying that by even engaging in the discussion I am advocating for premature hair loss and male pattern baldness. In other words, it’s a bogus bullshit attorney argument based upon a false and misleading equivocation. And honestly, I would not have expected anything less or even approaching mature discussion of the factual merits of the original statement.

However, please keep commenting, because it provides great ammunition for proving why certain professions should not be entrusted with honest intent and action.

Johnny Gold

Johnny GoldOkay Eddie, while you’re fantasizing, please get back to me on that time machine. I have some action I’d like to lay down on last year’s World’s Series.

Johnny Gold

Johnny GoldThat makes you an amateurish wanna-be vermin, Eddie. Lol.

Tao Lauw

Tao LauwNot really, considering that MY goal is to show how the crap that attorneys try to make appear lawfully binding upon all so as to enrich themselves through the creation of conflict where none should legitimately exist, is actually a complete load of elitist horse crap, or in this case, pig shit. Making MY efforts the complete and total opposite of what attorneys do. lol


As you can see, the attorney in the discussion was constantly trying to establish a false equivocation and dichotomy in the same breath, and when that didn’t work, he resorted to ad hominem attacks in a pathetic attempt to bolster his unfounded and equally unsubstantiated assertions that I was advocating slavery simply because I was discussing the facts relating to the invalidity of the constitutional convention when examined under the terms of the Articles of Confederation.

Furthermore, before the end of the second day of discussion was even reached, this attorney decided to resort to juvenile name-calling and parentage insults to myself and other commenters, which he quickly came back to delete before I personally got the chance to see them, and then decided that he would “Unfriend” and then block me on Facebook because he couldn’t make me see him as somehow superior in intellect and knowledge. And why should I when he has aptly demonstrated that such is not the case?

You can decide for yourself if anything he said in the posts memorialized here is true or false. Which really shouldn’t be difficult considering the simpleminded manner in which he tried to create the appearance of facts where none actually existed. The exact same kind of bullshit that they all-too-often pull in a court room while making it appear to the uneducated and uninitiated that they are actually doing their jobs properly and in the best interest of their client and justice instead of “just us,” meaning their own private profit and gain.

So, do you understand yet WHY you should NEVER trust your fate to the honesty and integrity of a profession of intellectually and morally dishonest criminals who profit from creating conflict and misery for their own selfish gain made entirely at our expense? At least pig shit would be useful as fertilizer. But, without an added incentive, like that of honey or rotten meat for example, I don’t think an attorney could even attract a group of honest flies to his or her carcass on its own merits, even if left to bake in the sun.

MEME - Liar Liar - New Lawyer Creed