Woman with crude anti-Trump truck decal arrested for fraud

[Fenton Lum]

Pro-tip: Do not try to be a peacock when you have warrants. [/FONT][/COLOR]

The feather display was just as magnificent, warrants or no.

 

[Mr Person]

I don't know if they will formerly charge her or not, but, it's really of little consequence now since she was arrested for an outstanding warrant (that pretty much shows what kind of person she is) and you can almost bet they'll give her the max sentence for it. Karma, and all, you know.

/triple facepalm.

It would be just as unconstitutional to give her the maximum sentence on the fraud charge in order to punish having the sticker as it would be to arrest her for having the sticker.


Just.... stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[reinoe]

Pro-tip: Do not try to be a peacock when you have warrants. [/FONT][/COLOR]

It reminds me of the illegal immigrant who was arrested and deported at an anti-Trump rally even though she had been given a warning the previous day that her documents were expired the previous day. It appears the entire progressive regressive left is driven by TDS.

 

[holbritter]

/triple facepalm.

It would be just as unconstitutional to give her the maximum sentence on the fraud charge in order to punish having the sticker as it would be to arrest her for having the sticker.


Just.... stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

You'd have to prove it first.

 

[Mr Person]

You'd have to prove it first.

I know it.

:shrug:

And just like a heart surgeon isn't going to "prove" to a plumber that the plumber's personal opinion on stent placement is wrong, I'm not going to bother. Believe whatever incorrect things you like.

The "proof" to the contrary was already laid out extensively in other thread. If someone refuses to read it, that just means they are being wilfully blind.





But wait a minute.... did you challenge him to "prove" that the woman could lawfully be arrested for having the sticker, as he is arguing?

Uhuh....right.....

 

[HowardBThiname]

Stupid baiting snipped for convenience...



/facepalm

The court's holding and rationale was quoted and discussed extensively in that thread. That's why you were directed there.

It's not my fault if you do not understand how to follow a link. It's also not my fault if you need other people to copy/paste existing posts for you.

I thought I made myself clear -- I prefer legal opinions as opposed to those on a forum message board.

LOL!

I do have the expertise.

But anyway, you're just putting on a big smug show of refusing to read the things that make you wrong. That's not an argument, but somehow, you're trying to use it like one. And then declare victory.

I you have the expertise (and anyone can be anything on a board like this), then you'll be able to put forth your argument in your own words and not rely on the public forum "threads" to make your points for you.

Just sayin'.

So what you do is, you use your fingers to move the cursor over this:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...driver-speaks-kprc-2-a-12.html#post1067854733

Got it? Ok, now click on the link using your mouse or your touchpad. That will bring you to another thread. Once you are there, you have to use your eyeballs to read.

Put it in your own words, Mr. Expertise.

 

[HowardBThiname]

/triple facepalm.

It would be just as unconstitutional to give her the maximum sentence on the fraud charge in order to punish having the sticker as it would be to arrest her for having the sticker.


Just.... stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, you might want to drop the charade of being an expert in the field, because you appear not to understand that those who offend more than once often get harsher sentences that those who offend for the first time.

Please show us where it is unconstitutional to give a person the maximum sentence allowed by law.

I'm dying to see that one.

 

[Mr Person]

Put it in your own words, Mr. Expertise.

Einstein, I am directing you to MY posts in that thread. And because they are MY posts, they are in MY words.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-photo-goes-viral-driver-speaks-kprc-2-a.html

Try not to DERP so hard. (Unless this is just trolling-by-lying, which is sadly common on DP)

I you have the expertise (and anyone can be anything on a board like this), then you'll be able to put forth your argument in your own words and not rely on the public forum "threads" to make your points for you.

AGAIN, I am directing you to MY WORDS in that thread. I am also directing you to the case citations and quotations in that thread. Plus, for the seventh (?) time, my words in that thread.

I'm having trouble imagining what it is you aren't able to understand here. I already laid out my argument in that thread to someone else. What I said there answers everything you said here.

However, I trusted that you knew how to follow a link. So, I didn't take the time to copy/paste a ton of posts from there to here for Your Lordship. That's why I directed you to the link, which again contains my posts, which in turn contain my words.

Get it yet?

I thought I made myself clear -- I prefer legal opinions as opposed to those on a forum message board.

I am giving you a "legal opinion".

If you meant "appellate decision", well, there are Supreme Court decisions quoted in that thread. That is ALSO why you were directed there.




Sheesh...... this isn't difficult.

 

[Mr Person]

Actually, you might want to drop the charade of being an expert in the field, because you appear not to understand that those who offend more than once often get harsher sentences that those who offend for the first time.

You didn't say anything about her criminal history. You insinuated that she'd get the maximum sentence on the fraud charge because of the sticker:

I don't know if they will formerly charge her or not, but, it's really of little consequence now since she was arrested for an outstanding warrant (that pretty much shows what kind of person she is) and you can almost bet they'll give her the max sentence for it. Karma, and all, you know.

Basically, stop lying.

Please show us where it is unconstitutional to give a person the maximum sentence allowed by law.

I never said it was. I said it would be unconstitutional to give her a greater sentence for the FRAUD charge because she had the sticker on her truck.

Stop lying.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Einstein, I am directing you to MY posts in that thread. And because they are MY posts, they are in MY words.

Try not to DERP so hard.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-photo-goes-viral-driver-speaks-kprc-2-a.html







I am giving you a "legal opinion".

If you meant "appellate decision", well, there are Supreme Court decisions quoted in that thread. That is ALSO why you were directed there.





Sheesh...... this isn't difficult.

Keep your "legal" opinions, then. I pay my attorney quite a bit per hour for his opinions and advice and he actually delivers something of value in return. He doesn't hand me a file of one of his other clients and say, here, read this if you want to know how I'll handle this issue.

If you think directing someone to a different thread qualifies as legitimate debate, then you're either a lazy conversationalist or a faker. If you can't hold up your end of a conversation, what are you doing here to begin with?

 

[Mr Person]

Keep your "legal" opinions, then. I pay my attorney quite a bit per hour for his opinions and advice and he actually delivers something of value in return. He doesn't hand me a file of one of his other clients and say, here, read this if you want to know how I'll handle this issue.

If you think directing someone to a different thread qualifies as legitimate debate, then you're either a lazy conversationalist or a faker. If you can't hold up your end of a conversation, what are you doing here to begin with?

Are you seriously asking me to copy/paste my posts from one thread to another?

Are you actually doing that while personally attacking me?

 

[HowardBThiname]

You didn't say anything about her criminal history. You insinuated that she'd get the maximum sentence on the fraud charge because of the sticker:

Of course I did. Read post 66 with a bit more care.

Basically, stop lying.

I'm not the one making wild claims.

I never said it was. I said it would be unconstitutional to give her a greater sentence for the FRAUD charge because she had the sticker on her truck.

Stop lying.

Then you're falling behind and you misspoke because you didn't read. You responded to my post, which cited her outstanding warrant.

You're not doing a good job convincing me that you have any expertise whatsoever in the legal field.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Are you seriously asking me to copy/paste my posts from one thread to another?

Are you actually doing that while personally attacking me?

I haven't attacked you -- but you do appear very defensive. I asked you to make your own argument instead of linking me to a different thread. That's a reasonable request.

You responded by claiming you're an "expert" and then refused to expound on your position.

Then, you called me a liar.

Who is attacking whom?

 

[Mr Person]

Then you're falling behind and you misspoke because you didn't read. You responded to my post, which cited her outstanding warrant.

Jeebus! The warrant is for a FRAUD charge. That is the ONLY charge she is facing.

And contrary to what you said (stop lying), she cannot constitutionally be given the maximum sentence for that fraud charge because she had the sticker on her car, which she is not and cannot be charged with.

O
You're not doing a good job convincing me that you have any expertise whatsoever in the legal field.

Oh, dear, do you actually think I'm waiting on your approval or opinion?

I know I'm right, and I laid out my argument in the other thread in my words. If Your Lordship cannot be bothered to go read it, that doesn't make you right. That just means you are being willfully blind.

:shrug:

 

[HowardBThiname]

Jeebus! The warrant is for a FRAUD charge. That is the ONLY charge she is facing.

And contrary to what you said (stop lying), she cannot constitutionally be given the maximum sentence for that fraud charge because she had the sticker on her car, which she is not and cannot be charged with.

I didn't say that, oh ye who fails to comprehend written English.

Oh, dear, do you actually think I'm waiting on your approval or opinion?

I know I'm right, and I laid out my argument in the other thread in my words. If Your Lordship cannot be bothered to go read it, that doesn't make you right. That just means you are being willfully blind.

:shrug:

Sorry. You've failed to make your argument and stomping your feet like a recalcitrant child isn't going to help.

If you were able to articulate your position, you would have by now.

You haven't and I'm tired of your games.

Have a nice day.

 

[holbritter]

I know it.

:shrug:

And just like a heart surgeon isn't going to "prove" to a plumber that the plumber's personal opinion on stent placement is wrong, I'm not going to bother. Believe whatever incorrect things you like.

The "proof" to the contrary was already laid out extensively in other thread. If someone refuses to read it, that just means they are being wilfully blind.





But wait a minute.... did you challenge him to "prove" that the woman could lawfully be arrested for having the sticker, as he is arguing?

Uhuh....right.....

No, I'm saying someone would have to prove that they are giving her the maximum sentence only because of the decal.

 

[Gina]

Jeebus! The warrant is for a FRAUD charge. That is the ONLY charge she is facing.

And contrary to what you said (stop lying), she cannot constitutionally be given the maximum sentence for that fraud charge because she had the sticker on her car, which she is not and cannot be charged with.








Oh, dear, do you actually think I'm waiting on your approval or opinion?

I know I'm right, and I laid out my argument in the other thread in my words. If Your Lordship cannot be bothered to go read it, that doesn't make you right. That just means you are being willfully blind.

:shrug:

Jeebus! The warrant is for a FRAUD charge. That is the ONLY charge she is facing.

And contrary to what you said (stop lying), she cannot constitutionally be given the maximum sentence for that fraud charge because she had the sticker on her car, which she is not and cannot be charged with.

I didn't say that, oh ye who fails to comprehend written English.






Sorry. You've failed to make your argument and stomping your feet like a recalcitrant child isn't going to help.

If you were able to articulate your position, you would have by now.

You haven't and I'm tired of your games.

Have a nice day.

Moderator's Warning:

That should end this between the two of you. Please move on and stop the personal back and forth. General to the thread: Moderation may still occur on posts made before this warning.

 

[Mr Person]

No, I'm saying someone would have to prove that they are giving her the maximum sentence only because of the decal.

Well, the judge has to put the reasons for the sentence on the record, so if he relied on the sticker he'd have to say it. The sentence would get overturned if he did. Some people might not agree but all I can say at this point is that they're wrong. I already explained why.



Now a judge could secretly be mad on the sticker, but the options of secretly punishing her for it would be limited. Every state I'm aware of has a sentencing guidelines scheme (advisory in most respects), and so it would look odd if she got an above-guidelines sentence that didn't cite reasons for deviating from the guidelines. Sentences outside of guidelines need more justification than ones within guidelines, or they may get overturned.

Maybe if she had a long criminal record (nobody has said so), the judge could point to that instead of the sticker. It really depends on the factors in play as they relate to the state's sentencing guidelines scheme. But basically, if the judge gave her a sentence that was outside what she would other get because of some secret anger at the sticker, she'd have a very good chance of having it overturned on appeal (most states have separate systems for appealing a sentence vs. appealing a conviction, but there are exceptions).




And all we seem to know now is that she had this outstanding warrant for a fraud charge, so, no, the judge is not going to be sentencing her to more time simply because of the sticker, even if secretly.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Sounds fair to me. No one wants their young children subjected to that word in public.

Isn't an interesting comment on our society that the word which basically means to engage in procreation is the most taboo word to let children hear?

Not that children should be engaged in procreation, definately NOT!

But, the act of making children is considered obscene...

Why?

Don't we mostly love the cuteness of kids?

ahhh... but wait... Not unless they're the "Authorized" right kind of kids... Namely, the kids of those in power,

... or those who serve them...

We don't want the Rivals, Rebels, Leeches, Moochers and Dead beats having kids...

So, only "Authorized by the Leaders" Procreation will be socially acceptable!

-

 

[HowardBThiname]

Isn't an interesting comment on our society that the word which basically means to engage in procreation is the most taboo word to let children hear?

Not that children should be engaged in procreation, definately NOT!

But, the act of making children is considered obscene...

Why?

Don't we mostly love the cuteness of kids?

ahhh... but wait... Not unless they're the "Authorized" right kind of kids... Namely, the kids of those in power,

... or those who serve them...

We don't want the Rivals, Rebels, Leeches, Moochers and Dead beats having kids...

So, only "Authorized by the Leaders" Procreation will be socially acceptable!

-

You bring up some interesting points. I tend to think for most parents, keeping children ignorant of the sex act while they're young is an attempt to protect their childhood -- as long as they can anyway. I also think that the F-word tends to demean the sex act and reduce it to animalistic mating rather than an act which can be construed as a factor in a loving relationship.

When parents do have "the talk," I don't think many of them refer to the act using the F-word.

But, I could be wrong.