About Us

April 13th 05, 10:13 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:40:48 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news

04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Apr 2005
11:41:29 -0400,
Once again you base your mistaken opinion

on technicalities and semantics. Someone

who murders someone is still guilty of a

criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet.
Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

(Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? )

I don't know. But whether or not the court

pronounced him as such doesn't change the

acts that he may or may not have done.

Once one is found not guilty in the US by a court of law and/or a jury
of their peers, you can not claim he is guilty, regardless of what he
may have done as relating to his case. Do so and you'll be broke after
being sued for defamation of character along with anything else
concerning libel or slander laws.
-
(Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something
wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went
to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal
because he's being accused? )

What if he's done the acts he was accused of,

.but because of an inability for the state to

prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses

becomes cloudy and he walks, what does

THAT make him?

Depends on the verdict. There are only three possibilities,,,,,innocent,
not guilty, and guilty.

(Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box?
listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what
type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case?
Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? )

If you witness someone killing another, do you
need a jury verdict before you know that that

person is a murderer?

You can "know" (translated in your case to being a simile for "believe")
anything you wish, but even if you witnessed such an act, you are not
permitted to publicly call him such IF he was tried and found other than
guilty. Your belief is irrelevent.
-
(I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is
he guilty of violating FCC rules? )

Absolutely!

If the law defines a particular act as criminal,

then if you engage in that act, you are

engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled

as such by a court is only a formality and a

convenient excuse for people who want to

thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease

their guilty conscience, by trying to convince

themselves that their activities aren't really

criminal because they haven't been caught

yet..

(chuckle),,you go on trying to convince *yourself" you have the right to
call one a criminal for what you perceive constitutes such. If you were
to publicly refer to one with their proper name as as a criminal, based
only what you present here and erroneously believe constitutes such
criminal activity (such as maintaining, on more than one occasion, that
one's posts in this group you -think- may belong to a certain identity,
is "proof" enough (for you) to refer to the person as a criminal), a
small filing fee would be paid (AFTER your criminal charges) and you
would be buried in civil court by someone versed in what you mistakenly
perceive as the law. After the criminal charges were applied you, the
civil matter would be only a formality, based on your guilt from the
outcome of the criminal trial based on your libel/slander/defamatory
comments, which are in turn based on -your- erroenous beliefs.

-
(No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers, litterbugs
etc etc and calling them criminals will change nothing. )

Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging

in a particular criminal activity isn't really a

criminal because they haven't been caught or

convicted of it yet.
=A0
On the contrary,,that IS the law, David, and it does change things..
_
(=A0You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people you know criminals
then, because by a national survey that's the percentage that speed. )

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.
Neither is dxing

Operating a radio transmitter without a license
is.

CB.

Interesting that you lump illegally operating

a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary
offenses as jay-walking, speeding and simple

littering.

Yet, here you squat to ****, lumping in civil infractions with criminal
infractions. Another case of you selectively doing so only when you
agree with the premise.

Those summary offenses do not carry criminal
penalties. Violation of certain FCC rules, on

the other hand, does.

Not dx.

Some people used to

think the same thing about theft of cable TV

service.

The you should have no problem citing an example where one of these
mystery people you are always invoking claimed they thought stealing
from a cable TV service was legal/acceptable/non-criminal.

Until the law changed and got some

teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices
face serious jail time.

But not dxers.
Anyways, those who sell illegal cable boxes are a much different
scenario than the first you invoked. Selling illegal converters carries
a much harsher charge than merely using one, but it does illustrate how
far off topic you are wliling to run.

(You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only
way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before
that they are only a suspect. )

Maybe in a legal sense,

LOL,,as opposed to what? The legal sense is the only manner in which you
may legally refer to one a criminal. Do it ay other way and you are
opening yourself to penalties. Using your own warped logic (admitting
something on the internet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of
law) concerning what is said among internet babble, the mere fact that
you were informed of the law on many occasion, yet continue to refer to
certain proper names as a criminal, can enhance your penalties because
you continued to break said laws. Even though you may correctly plead
ignorance, such is never held in a court of law as a valid excuse for
one breaking the law.

but that's a poor justification for engaging in

criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call

me a criminal because a jury didn't convict me
yet".

(A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of being a child
molester. DA says that he won't prosecute because lack of evidence
and it doesn't look like he really did anything. You start calling him a
child molester and criminal to friends and people that you know, that
will leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't run
around accusing people of being criminals. )

Ah, but there is a fine difference.

Only in your mind.

A person accused is presumed innocent until

proven guilty.

And only a court of law can determine such proof, not you, not your
observational skills, not your "knowing" based on beliefs, and certainly
not your (mis)interpretations of the law.

But you know as well as I do

that the system is flawed, and many times

guilty people walk for various reasons.

Irrelevant.
You continue to express extreme difficulty in comprehending that you
may not refer to these people as criminals.

Conversely, some innocent people are

wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I

don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a

criminal.

You most certainly do if you wish to say it publicly or to another.

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a

bunch of people on an internet forum that he

did indeed molest children?

More of your ignorance. I can say I shot Kennedy....it means ****,
except to you.

Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same

thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial.

Good gawd oh mighty. Here's where you get schooled again. not only do
you have no clue who one is on the internet, you are incompetently and
incorrectly claiming hearsay is the same thing as pleading guilty. Your
ignorance of the law has no bounds,

It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see
to make up my mind.

Of course, you do. You have been mispronouncing people on the internet
as "federal criminals" as long as you have been spoon-fed carefully
scripted information. Now that you shout to the world your mistaken
belief that what one posts on the internet is tantamount to an admission
of guilt in a US court of law, all one can do is laugh at you or feel
pity.
Besides, your position can get you sued, should you exercise it as you
claim,

If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking

criminal for violation of FCC rules on

freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove

.it, it becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't
doing it).

You have no way of knowing what someone, such as myself, does or
doesn't. Because you mistakenly believe everyone that posts from webtv
is the twisted who rang your bell and a sock puppet, doesn't make it so.
Because you weren't aware roger beeps were legal, did not make them
illegal, as you ignorantly maintained. Because you denied the existence
of a federal DOT, didnt alter the reality of it.

If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or

you brag to other people that you do it,

Wrong again. I can sit here and tell you I robbed banks, killed Kennedy,
was single-handedly responsible for the theft of the Star of India, and
broker counterfeit Monets,,,it means ****,,,,,,of course,,,except to
you, who has these warped beliefs regarding legalities responsible for
so many errors in your comments.

then you are engaging in a criminal activity. _

Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "

it's only guilty if you're caught" mentality.

Actually, the fact that one is only guilty when assessed by a court of
law, is not a mentality, David, it's US law reality. This mentality you
speak of, is all yours. The law,,,, is reality.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

And your comments are typical of those consumed with hate and those of
little tolerance for all but your own beliefs.

(Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only be called
guilty in front of the lord all-mighty)

Isn't that enough?

(If you conscience bothers you, yes.)

If you are of sound moral principles, then it

should.

What you profess as sound moral principles, ranks right there with your
denial the legality of roger beeps, the denial the existence of the
federal DOT, and your claim there is no federal speed limit (there is,
and it governs all commercial vehicles).

If not, then you start bordering on

.sociopathic tendencies.

The law disagrees with you.

(You can't serve time and be branded a
"criminal" until found guilty in a court of law. )

But the fact that you might get away with a

crime, doesn't lessen what you truly are.

But the fact that you claim internet babble is the same thing as a
guilty plea in a court of law, most certainly governs when you may or
may not publicly refer one as a criminal.
Referring to a person proper as a criminal based on what -you- believe
is one's internet identity and what they may have posted, illustrates,
no,,,"screams" ignorance regarding your knowledge of the law.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.

(Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave, that's why
they are called suspects, not criminals. )
Once again, this is to accommodate a
person's presumption of innocence in the
course of due process .

And once again, if you

witness a crime, you don't need a jury to tell

you what your senses already did.

And once again, -your- (non)senses alone are not proof by any
definition, and are irrelevent except/unless directed by a court of law.

(Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language and threating
people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ. By you're logic, that alone
should brand you a criminal. )

No, since I did not do it,

Holding with your logic, if one posts here with your call sign and spoke
of such activity, it would make them a criminal. You haven't a clue,
David, despite more and more people educating you each day.

and the distance between us makes it very

unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated

that I did it and/or you witnessed ME doing it,

and you could positively identify me, then you

.could factually make that statement.

Wrong. Especially concerning radio laws. The FCC can NOT prosecute
unless one of their agents witness the act. You can cry all day in your
spilled, spoiled milk about it, but it will not change the facts of the
law, of which you are unable to learn. The bottom line responsible for
maiming your psyche, is that you can not refer to one as a criminal
unless they were convicted in a court of law. It's comical watching you
attempt to explain the opposite of what our laws hold, and hypocritical
for one who invokes the law so much,,,except, of course, in instances
such as this where you disagree with the law, then it suddenly becomes
about -your- perceptions and beliefs and no longer about the law. Not
only do you epitomize the now widely-accepted "some of those licensed in
communications seem to know the least about it and express the most
difficulties", but serve
as a perfect example of those who like to fancy themselves skilled in a
certain area, but are completely lost and inept regarding the subject
that mesmerizes them so...in this case, the law and its components.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

.n3cvj

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us