Planet X / Nibiru: Top Special Forces Soldier Says It's Coming (Video)

My money’s on Meuth. Twice.

FYI Syco — Meuth (NM) is a fella who regularly posts his name, his actual address and his phone number. He’s either very insane, or very brave — neither of which work out too good in your favor.

Also — Buda ain’t very far from Dallas, so maybe you should think twice about poking a stick in the eye of a fella who only has to walk out his back door to load up on ammo at Cabela’s.

And finally — I guarantee you don’t have the sack to post your info the way Meuth does. So zip it.

LifeIs wrote:

“TCB stop giving legal advice. You’re wrong.”

Wow. Mr. Is thinks I’m wrong. Well now, that is just unprecedented. Let’s see whether Mr. Is is true to form per lately, that being his form of standing in almost complete darkness with respect to most things.

LifeIs wrote:

“People have been prosecuted simply for saying, “If I had known this would happen, I’d have killed him.””

Cough it up, Cowboy. Some case law, right here. I’m about fed up with your opinions of things. And while we’re at it, why don’t you answer my question to you about Voyager telemetry over at:

/space/2016/07/neptune-sized-nibiru-planet-x-may-be-approximately-22-lunar-distances-away-from-earth-2500815.html#comment_258787

“State laws differ.”

Really? And that’s news to whom, precisely? Do you think state laws differ so fundamentally on such a foundational issue as threat adjudication?

“About “unconditional,” we have this: “…the courts have directly held that conditional threats (“If you touch me again I’ll kill you”) DO qualify (as criminal threats)”…”

Right. So the document you link to provides information on UNEQUIVOCAL, UNCONDITIONAL, and SPECIFIC threats. You quoted the section from UNCONDITIONAL, so let’s see the entirety of it:

Unconditional: This word is very bizarrely used here, because the courts have directly held that conditional threats (“If you touch me again I’ll kill you”) DO qualify. It is a gray area, but presumably, the fewer conditions used, the more likely the court will rule that it is a threat.

So the best you (LifeIs) can hope for is the decision of a lower court (certainly the US Supreme Court has made NO such ruling) which can then be overturned on appeal. See friend, WORDS have meaning. Now a lower court may enter a ruling that ‘unconditional’ doesn’t really mean unconditional, but then we hire an attorney on appeal who knows how to do his job and he FORCES the court to obey the laws of the land. Because here’s the trick: Courts ARE still answerable to the laws as they are written. Words like ‘unconditional’ carry a specific and, well, unconditional meaning.

“Generally, a threat must be specific and must cause fear that is reasonable. But not always.”

The threat Syco made will NEVER be successfully prosecuted in any higher court in this land – supposing the case were defended by an attorney who actually knew how to tie his own shoes.

Don’t you have anything better to do, LifeIs. Like preparing for your untimely demise sometime within the next nine months and ten days? You know, for a dead man walking, you sure do waste a good deal of the time you think you have remaining to you on vain argumentation.

(And no, that wasn’t a threat. LifeIs is certain Niburu is coming to get him and everyone else on or before that 5 May 2017.)

Reel it in, man.

Look who’s calling someone else a coward azzed female..
nm156, Hypocrite. Yeah you know what I’m talking about.

“very insane or very brave” nah, just another idiot.

“It would not be a matter of case law. It would be a statute.”

STOP BEING OBTUSE AND CITE THE STATUTE THEN. I grow weary of both this and you.

“The CASE from Texas is from 1996. The man who was prosecuted was Sam Krasniqi. A jury acquitted him in a finding of fact.”

Brilliant, LifeIs. Do you actually pay attention when someone else is speaking, or do you just hear the sound of your own voice constantly within your own head? Every day people are CHARGED with all kinds of nonsense in this country. But we have a justice system with courts and judges just for that reason. Do I think it is POSSIBLE for a person to be charged in ERROR and found not guilty in court? Is that really what you’re trying to reduce this (by now) ridiculous conversation to?

WHAT DID I SAY? I said no higher court in this nation would EVER convict Syco for the conditional threat he leveled against NM. Any attorney worth HALF his salt would walk through the litigation with his eyes shut and emerge victorious.

“What I remember is the TV news documentary, which identified the person threatened as the prosecutor. It was like, “if I had known how this case would come out, I’d have killed him.”…”

I have less than zero interest in what you remember about a moot point. By your own admission the defendant was acquitted. Do you imagine that’s because the state had a strong case?

“Acquittal by a jury doesn’t change the law.”

OB. TUSE. The LAW is what is in question here, numbnutz. You think you have a statute that contradicts what I said above? Then cough it up. Otherwise, we’re about finished here. And the egg on your face prevails and proliferates.

“American courts follow precedent whenever possible. That’s called, “let the decision stand,” or “stare decisis.”…”

Moot point. Cite case law for something that agrees with you – not with me.

“You’d need a conflict with some other precedent, or with the Constitution.”

You need a conflict between a ruling and the LAW. Judges in this country do NOT rule by diktat. Judges are BEHOLDEN to the laws as they are written. Do you understand? And if a person is CONVICTED of issuing an UNCONDITIONAL THREAT when in fact he has included VERY clear and VERY defined CONDITIONS with his threat, well now he can’t rightly be convicted in ANY court for violating a law which brazenly states UNCONDITIONAL as a CONDITION of the crime or the offense.

Good grief man.

I am so tired of your empty and pointless jousting.

[And why on earth are you trying to import another one of our conversations from another page onto THIS page? Go and see what I said to you on the other board. Stop deliberately trying to sow confusion.]

BUT OH LOOK… HE HAS MORE TO SAY IN A FOLLOW-ON POST. I’ll try to keep this brief. After that I believe I’m finished with this annoying conversation.

“…state and federal laws on terrorist threats differ widely…”

Not as much as you’re pretending they do, fella.

“Missouri, for instance, only considers a terrorist threat one which frightens more than ten people. However, California insists that the fear caused be ‘sustained’ (held for more than a brief instant).”

Conditional threats, LifeIs. That is what we’re discussing here. Go re-read what I said above about differences in law from one state to the next. You’re wasting my time.

Egg, LifeIs.

Wear it.

You are just determined to score points in this case, aren’t you. Stands to reason, because I know you’re having second thoughts about your ridiculous Niburu proclamations. Yes I said ‘I know’ LifeIs. Otherwise you would never labor so hard in nonsense areas like this one. Let’s see for all your new ‘research’ whether you’ve been able to score any points. You wrote:

“…a “terrorist threat” in Texas includes “…threatens to commit…violence…with the intent to cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official”…”

Glorious. And useless to your argument. But at least by the time this foolish argument is over, which it will be after this final post from me, you will have learned something about law. Or perhaps you’ll have learned nothing. You continue:

“Under Texas law…”

Yadda yadda yadda. Defining terroristic threats is not how to win your argument. Rather, you need to define CONDITIONAL threats under criminal or penal code. And I will not be repeating that to you ever again. It’s like Mayhem’s been saying to you lately – there are plenty of folk reading these exchanges. I can’t reason with an unreasonable man like you, so when I appeal to reason, I appeal not to you but to them.

“Court rulings ARE the law. It’s called “case law” or “common law.”…”

Thanks. Have you been reading what I wrote so far? You used the term precedent, I used the term case law. I didn’t think you were ignorant of the fact the two are the same, but since you’ve just learned as much within the past few minutes, I guess I should stop overestimating you.

“Judges DO write law.”

Judges are first BEHOLDEN to the law. In criminal law, a Judge makes a ruling in the case of a bench trial or imposes a sentence in the case of a jury trial. Precedent is set in such ways and case law is established. But if the judge rules in a manner which is grossly at odds with statutory law, then the verdict will be overturned and, in extreme cases, the judge will have exposed himself to censure. And if he strays to far from statutory law he can be fired and/or disbarred, or, in the event of an elected official, recalled.

“And appeals courts resolve the issue if there is a conflict, as I told you.”

As you told me, eh? You are dreaming, friend. Dreaming.

“If a person is charged “in error” the case is either dropped by the prosecutor or dismissed by the judge.”

By error I do not mean accidentally. I mean wrongly or falsely. I mean in contradiction or contradistinction to the law – as it is WRITTEN.

“It doesn’t go to trial. A trial is about the facts.”

Courtroom attorneys crow about facts. But a trial is NOT about facts. A trial is about what can be ‘proven.’ It is about which side argues better. ALL MANNER of things can be ‘proven’ (so-called) in a courtroom. But what is ‘proven’ and what is factual are VERY OFTEN not the same thing. Am I really explaining this to a man in his sixties?

“AGAIN, if someone is acquitted at trial, that says NOTHING about the law.”

And for the LAST TIME LIFEIS – your saying this to me twice now betrays the fact that you just can’t grasp certain simple concepts. I see now VERY CLEARLY why you are such an inept researcher; why you have become as hopelessly mired in lies and stupidity as you have. Your brain is not functioning at a level which can process simple information efficiently and correctly. You’re not a stupid man. But some crucial element or other is out of whack with respect to your mental apparatus. If someone is acquitted, it means the state’s case was weak or flawed – or the prosecutor himself (herself, lately) was weak or flawed. Or it means the defense attorney was better equipped to argue than the prosecutor was. Or it means the defense attorney knew how to pick a jury better than the prosecutor. Etc., etc. But most importantly and most often, when a person is acquitted it means that law enforcement OVERREACHED when they swore out their complaint against the defendant. It means that law enforcement did something foolish, like fail to understand written law which states that an UNCONDITIONAL THREAT must indeed be UNCONDITIONAL. I’m not accusing the law and I haven’t since you jumped in my face at the top of this thread.

LAST TIME.

The remainder of your quotes are scarcely worth commentary. It is illegal to threaten. I have not argued that FACT ever. But by placing conditions or caveats on the threat, the threat is reduced to the level of a ‘warning’ and the issuer of the conditional threat has bought himself all the wiggle room his defense attorney will EVER need to circumvent laws against terroristic threats AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

“The courts have held ‘conditional threats are true threats if their context reasonably conveys to the victim that they are intended…”

That’s because a poorly-worded ‘conditional threat’ might look something like this: ‘If I ever see you again I am going to…’ Or as you mentioned above: ‘If the Sun rises to morrow I will…” But is that what we’re talking about in this case? Hardly, and I’ll ask you not to pretend that you believe otherwise. Semantically speaking, those two examples are conditional threats. But the conditions are not utterly dependent on the behavior of the threatened party. In the first case, the threatened party might inadvertently cross paths with the threatening party; in the second, it’s almost guaranteed that the Sun will rise on the Morrow, so what’s the ‘condition’ really worth?

“Most threats are conditional; they are designed to accomplish something…”

Let’s say you’re right about that. SO WHAT? Did I ever declare that most threats are unconditional terroristic threats?

“…when conditional threats are made with a sense of purpose and likelihood that they will be executed if the condition is/isn’t satisfied, they will be considered criminal threats.”

This could be taken to mean: “If you don’t pay me thirty thousand dollars by midnight, I will…” And while semantically that might qualify as a conditional threat, that’s not what we’re talking about here. Again.

“Note: People v. Brooks (1994) ruled that it’s absurd to say that any conditional threat is legal.”

I will agree with this statement. Not ALL conditional threats are legal. The above examples should suffice to demonstrate a clear distinction between a legal and an illegal ‘conditional’ threat.

LifeIS – the entire point of this annoying exercise revolves around what I said about Syco’s comment to NM. Your assertions are patently false. I will say again, but for the last time – if there is a court in this land that would convict Syco for his conditional threat against NM, Syco would win on appeal. An appeal would be EASILY secured by his attorney and easily won. The level of competence in the judiciary increases as one ascends above the municipal, township or county court level.

Say on to your heart’s content. One of us knows about this subject and the other just gave himself a crash course in the legality of threats. My dialogue with you about this matter is now at an end.

@ Central Scrutinizer Bob is everyone’s uncle!

Fed up —

You should maybe learn some law before you rat on commentators like Syco. What Syco did was level a ‘conditional threat’ which is not a crime. A ‘terroristic threat’ is an indictable offense and is a direct and overt threat with no conditions or caveats. A terroristic threat would be: I am going to…

Not: I will if you…

They offer to stomp me, anything I did would be self defense.

@ Central Scrutinizer how is the weather? Just as humid?