Sep 26, 2015 7:13 AM

"Amanda Dale, executive director of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, says Basil Borutski's "pointed refusal'' to sign the document was "a huge red flag.''""

Hmmm... not contracting.... lie

^^^^^^ next sentence is the bald faced lie- "A refusal to sign the order doesn't mean it lacks the weight of the law, and such probation orders take effect immediately, regardless of whether offenders sign them."

HEL[fucking]LOS?

"He says a signature is little more than an acknowledgment that the offender read the order." Lie

You're on a roll!

It jumps off the page...

Only because I showed you. The thing you ALL forget is that MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IT!

...for no other reason than they don't know how to read.

*sigh* I never forget that. Sir

How ever, I had my own war on wrong going prior to encountering you online. I was warned of honey pots and deceit. Your word has proved true. I invested the time.

Why am I the ONLY one?

I have a few thoughts around that.

Facebook ALONE has over a billion people, and I'm the ONLY ONE who tells the truth? REALLY?

No it is not you alone, I do my best to tell the truth as I know it. I am teeing up my shot to get on to the green, so to speak. In a little bit. You have had a hell of a ride and perhaps you're tired , sir.

Provide 3 examples of someone telling the truth without a bunch of lies or bullshit in it.

I do not know, off hand.

REALLY?

You, yourself, acknowledge that truth is rare, and you CAN'T REMEMBER WHO TOLD YOU THE FUCKING TRUTH?

REALLY?

other than the ones who think they know... bul shit is easy.. it is the norm... ok.. you are the only one. I learn as I go, I have shared many things on crypto currencies

give me a sec. thinking

Yes, the truth is that rare, that I have to think about it...

That's not what I asked for. You claimed I'm "Not the only one". I claim you are LYING.

Clear?

I would accept 3 examples to refute that claim.

I keep asking why I'M THE ONLY ONE. It's the ONLY question that really matters. I am SO SURE I'm the only one, that I can simply say you are a liar, and be CERTAIN of that claim.

WHY?

I have told my truth. Sino genaral has told his. you have told yours

When I say it's UNTRUE that "i'm not the only one", I seem VERY certain.

WHY?

Is it "arrogance"?

Perhaps it's my "god" complex?

I agree with you. I am not lying. I am processing and thinking, it takes me some time.

It's not MY TRUTH you fucking idiot. I don't OWN truth. It's TRUE, or it's NOT TRUE. PERIOD. End of debate. Your delusions are irrelevant!

ok, point taken, I stand corrected.

on off..

I REALLY doubt that.

A work in progress, refitting is taking longer than usual.

I don't think you know HOW to "correct". You need to destroy what lead you to the wrong answer in the first place.

ok, How?

Look a the mechanics of the thought process that lead you there.

Ok... I am going off line to ponder. back soon

If you see a pattern, destroy it. 9 times out of 10, a Piece-of-Shit christian put the defective process there in your youth.

I have to write it out a bit.

Ahh Haa.

It's how the lump of protoplasm that you laughingly call a "brain" parses data. You are a pattern-seeking mammal, just like all the other Great Apes. You aren't special. Just defective.

feck

I have to go pick up the pieces of my melon ... again. Thank you for your time sir, Our wish is this benefits some one.

Aside from a few neurologists thinking I'm fucking hysterical, I doubt it. :P

If you do not like what you are doing, quit. Life is too short.

"He was giving somebody a message and the message wasn't properly interpreted." <--- It was "interpreted" correctly. That's why they "had to" RED FLAG it. Put simply...he didn't consent and they hate it when we don't consent.

One more thing....a lie by omission. Nobody said anything about SURETY and ACCOUNTING. :)

They also said nothing about the lack of access we ALL have to COMMON LAW.

You have access to Common Law all the time! If you are dealing with the COURTS, then YOU ARE ATTORNED

But staying out of course is the objective. You can't bring a man to court... why is there interest in common law? Is that any commerce in common Law or is it just the Law for the Commons?

Common Law is LEGALLY how injury is calculated (It's all surety and accounting).

If you touch MONEY (Fiat) that is LEGAL TENDER, you get the "backing" of the government for ACCOUNTING, and LAW is TENDERED to determine SURETY.

injury. I have to go look up some word.

n. any harm done to a person by the acts or omissions of another. Injury may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation or dignity, loss of a legal right, or breach of contract. If the party causing the injury was either willful (intentionally causing harm) or negligent then he/she is responsible (liable) for payment of damages for the harm caused. Theoretically, potential or continuing injury may be prevented by an order of the court upon a petition for an injunction.

Interesting. You never said to "challenge jurisdiction" but I was trying to see how it would connect to the use of calculating injury in ''common law jurisdiction'' for need of accounting... Trying to see if I have a piece of bullshit i need to get rid of...

am I mixing topics here?

maybe a ''buzz word'' that stuck with me that is littering the floor of my mind, or maybe partially relevant...

You're forgetting the original purpose of the thread. spot the lies.

My mistake Admiral. On it.

I thought that a signature is to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, and/or obligation. "He says a signature is little more than an acknowledgment that the offender read the order." This looks like they are lying by omission. Where do they mention approval, acceptance and obligation? Am I completely missing the point here??

You are not missing anything. The lawyer is simply lying!

NEVER take the word of a LAWYER. It's their JOB to lie.

Yes.

Here in REALITY, a SIGNATURE IS PROOF OF SURETY! NOTHING ELSE! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "UNDERSTANDING"!