If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.

Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.

I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
>
> Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
>
> I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.

Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> >
> > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> >
> > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)

In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office.. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.

(Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)

What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:

" ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> > (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)
> What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:
>
> " ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."

Since you like predictions:

I predict that you will side-step my argument, and fail to present what your bogus precedent-based argument even is, to the public and to me.

If you do it, that would establish you even more firmly in the eyes of the American public as fugitives from justice who are using criminal powers to evade prosecution and the courts.

Maybe you'll prove me wrong and do the right thing on Nov 30, though.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:34:32 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > > > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> > > (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)
> > What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:
> >
> > " ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."
> Since you like predictions:
>
> I predict that you will side-step my argument, and fail to present what your bogus precedent-based argument even is, to the public and to me.
>
> If you do it, that would establish you even more firmly in the eyes of the American public as fugitives from justice who are using criminal powers to evade prosecution and the courts.
>
> Maybe you'll prove me wrong and do the right thing on Nov 30, though.

Does this annoy you?...

"You can't state the precedent argument, you only speak by stating 5 letters at a time, that's your policy? You're not Al-Capone-1930's-organized-crime-mobster impersonators, you just thought the word, 'precedent,' in your minds and were instantly exonerated by all courts and your friend God (for stealing Philip White's life when he's clearly not a terrorist at all and you know that and no honest organization, not even an attemptedly-honest fake American secret court, ever ruled to the contrary)?"

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:34:32 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > > > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > > > > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges.. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> > > > (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)
> > > What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:
> > >
> > > " ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."
> > Since you like predictions:
> >
> > I predict that you will side-step my argument, and fail to present what your bogus precedent-based argument even is, to the public and to me.
> >
> > If you do it, that would establish you even more firmly in the eyes of the American public as fugitives from justice who are using criminal powers to evade prosecution and the courts.
> >
> > Maybe you'll prove me wrong and do the right thing on Nov 30, though.
> Does this annoy you?...
>
> "You can't state the precedent argument, you only speak by stating 5 letters at a time, that's your policy? You're not Al-Capone-1930's-organized-crime-mobster impersonators, you just thought the word, 'precedent,' in your minds and were instantly exonerated by all courts and your friend God (for stealing Philip White's life when he's clearly not a terrorist at all and you know that and no honest organization, not even an attemptedly-honest fake American secret court, ever ruled to the contrary)?"

"It's a top-secret highly classified legal analysis?"

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:39:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:34:32 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > > > > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > > > > > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> > > > > (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)
> > > > What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:
> > > >
> > > > " ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."
> > > Since you like predictions:
> > >
> > > I predict that you will side-step my argument, and fail to present what your bogus precedent-based argument even is, to the public and to me.
> > >
> > > If you do it, that would establish you even more firmly in the eyes of the American public as fugitives from justice who are using criminal powers to evade prosecution and the courts.
> > >
> > > Maybe you'll prove me wrong and do the right thing on Nov 30, though.
> > Does this annoy you?...
> >
> > "You can't state the precedent argument, you only speak by stating 5 letters at a time, that's your policy? You're not Al-Capone-1930's-organized-crime-mobster impersonators, you just thought the word, 'precedent,' in your minds and were instantly exonerated by all courts and your friend God (for stealing Philip White's life when he's clearly not a terrorist at all and you know that and no honest organization, not even an attemptedly-honest fake American secret court, ever ruled to the contrary)?"
> "It's a top-secret highly classified legal analysis?"

Another point on this:

Precedent is a way to argue--it is a type of argument. It is NOT confer legal analysts and debaters an automatic ability to replace judges in courts of law. "Constitution-based" is a kind of argument, too...your argument is absurd and has not been presented to a court. Of course my arguments haven't been presented to a court either--that's because your crime pawns have taken steps to deprive me of the resources (including evidence like my PARR and money) and access to lawyers and a court that would allow me to seek justice...you've covered everything up, that's why you're close to losing another election and then dying instead of merely facing a verdict you wouldn't like (i.e., I assert that you would lose the case).

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> > (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)
> What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:
>
> " ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."

By the way, what I think I meant when I wrote this was: Courts sometimes overturn previous rulings, meaning that "there is precedent for rejecting precedent." Judges assess questions about law, while juries assess questions about facts; the judge uses his/her legal training to analyze and weigh what is presented, and then come up with the right answer on legal questions. Any argument about precedent can be rejected by a judge, and in fact, entire verdicts on specific cases can be thrown out of court based on appeal. Our legal system is based on CASE BY CASE analysis of facts; no one would say, "Fred committed a murder and was jailed; thus, there is precedent for jailing accused murderers, and so Jim, another accused murderer, may be thrown in jail based on this precedent (without a trial--the ruling has 'already happened')," and get such an absurd argument accepted by a court.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 2:23:15 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:19:35 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:44 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > > > > > If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.
> > > > > Also, just as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but it is a defense, it is true that: Arguments based on precedent are arguments, not laws; sometimes, courts strike down laws based on precedent, including based on Constitutional concerns. (I read about laws a lot when I was a kid. You should too, Democrats.)
> > > > In other words, precedent is a legal argument that you may submit to a judge in a court hearing. Precedent-based arguments, such as "Sometimes the government gets away with corrupt and illegal activity; that's precedent, so therefore we, as government leaders can get away with illegal activity," must be ruled on my court judges, and may be rejected by such judges. In particular, I assert that your argument about surveillance-precedent absolutely does NOT "legalify" holding me as a political prisoner and political slave forever. Indeed, I assert that what you are doing is definitely illegal, although it has not been ruled on by a judge at this time, and will remain illegal forever unless you can get in front of a (speedy and) public judge in court and get him to accept your lawyer's argument about precedent in court.
> > > (Yes, everyone, this is what it takes!)
> > What I said, pre-CIA editing, was:
> >
> > " ... courts strike down arguments based on precedent, ..."
> By the way, what I think I meant when I wrote this was: Courts sometimes overturn previous rulings, meaning that "there is precedent for rejecting precedent." Judges assess questions about law, while juries assess questions about facts; the judge uses his/her legal training to analyze and weigh what is presented, and then come up with the right answer on legal questions. Any argument about precedent can be rejected by a judge, and in fact, entire verdicts on specific cases can be thrown out of court based on appeal. Our legal system is based on CASE BY CASE analysis of facts; no one would say, "Fred committed a murder and was jailed; thus, there is precedent for jailing accused murderers, and so Jim, another accused murderer, may be thrown in jail based on this precedent (without a trial--the ruling has 'already happened')," and get such an absurd argument accepted by a court.

Here is a classic historical example of rejected precedent (I allege that it may be one of Joe Biden's favorite rulings):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Here is the ruling that involved the rejection of the precedent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Oh yeahhhhh...how ironic, it looks like my deceased grandfather has struck again, and my extended family's genius (which is mainly concentrated in me, by the way, but Theresa is definitely smart too) has outstripped the intellect of the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden families, yet again.

What does it feel like to lose to watch your well-known and well-connected families lose to and get crushed by my extended family again and again and again, guys? Don't cry, it wouldn't help. (Also, try not to murder anyone else in my family...that would hurt you too, but you wouldn't sense it.)

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> If Democrats would claim that there is court-based legal precedent for holding people that Congressional/WH leaders merely dislike or have made up allegations about in a way like how I am being held without a trial, and thus it is perfectly legal and Constitutional to hold me in this capacity, then I disagree with that...in particular, I cannot petition Congress for redress or hire a lawyer and go to court, due to coverups of evidence, to pursue justice for me--I'm facing very serious and sophisticated obstruction of justice, which is definitely illegal. For example, my privacy act request response from DOD was stolen from my apartment by the CIA, and the CIA part of my DOD PARR was never delivered. The courts have not ruled on that; I believe the courts may have ruled that surveillance/harassment campaigns against suspected terrorists are legal, and that is a bogus ruling that I and others subject to this sort of treatment must be allowed to challenge in court, without facing illegal obstruction of justice, including being prevented from getting a job to get money to hire a lawyer and sue.
>
> Nevertheless, by the Democrats' own admission if they say this, it would be perfectly legal for DJT to hack and bot-harass all Congressional leaders whom he dislikes with CIA/NSA capabilities if he gets back into office. Further, based on the clear and persistent refusal of these leaders to stop committing crimes (including human trafficking and stalking--the courts never struck down such crime laws as un-Constitutional or otherwise invalid, no legal precedent argument protects you from this), DJT would, if re-elected, have the legal right to use his capabilities to kill anyone in Congress he wants to whom he is surveilling and has been found to be committing a serious crime, including an act of terror or human trafficking.
>

By the way, if Trump got back into office, how do Mark Warner and other key Democrats on committees responsible for intelligence oversight know that, assuming DJT got control of Congress too, he wouldn't use your argument to put you under surveillance without you ever realizing it, steal your political strategy, and put Gingrich-type leaders in office for the next 200 years?

Is it really worth it to keep doing this? You are literally "dying for slavery."

> I disagree with that legal analysis, but on Dec 1, we will all see if Congressional Democrats accept it along with their associated possible future fates.