I had the Olympics on in the background and when the programming switched I didn't notice. Turns out it was MSNBC, which I never watch otherwise. What got my attention was yet another sanctimonious discussion of Trump's "founders" comments, which produced an interesting observation from Brad Todd, the token Republican on the panel. He began by suggesting that Trump had intentionally steered the narrative to the Obama/Clinton foreign policy and how it's failures led directly to the rise of ISIS. Of course, this led to the host's remonstrance that they weren't talking about that connection, but about Trump's accusations.

You can rub their noses in it, but they still can't smell their own shit.

Anyway, that led to the following observation by Todd, which I paraphrase:

His supporters take Trump seriously as a candidate but they don’t take everything he says seriously and literally. The MSM take everything he says seriously and literally and they don’t take him seriously as a candidate.

Don't recall if I mentioned it, but I didn't think Trump blundered when he said Obama and Clinton were the "founders" of ISIS.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

What he did was something he has done before, i.e., say something outrageous to focus attention on an issue that favors him. In this instance, it was to focus attention on the Obama/Clinton foreign policy moves that lead directly to the rise of ISIS. While the MSM was squealing in indignation about Trump's outlandish and provocative accusations they were also tacitly and in some cases openly making the connection between the Obama/Clinton foreign policy failures and the rise of ISIS.

Scot Adams knows what's up. This guy is probably the smartest analyst on the other side:

The Greatest Cognitive Dissonance Trap of All Time

http://blog.dilbert.com/pos...

Long after the furor over Trump's calling Obama and Clinton the "founders" of ISIS is forgotten the fact that the Obama/Clinton foreign policy failures led directly to the rise of ISIS will be remembered.

'This is the first reported case of a human being placed in a receivership since the abolition of slavery in 1865.'

http://dailycaller.com/2016...

Okay, this has been out of the local news for a while, but the Daily Caller is being a bit overboard in its description of Baron.
For the record, I consider Ferguson, Krishan and baron to be the lowest form of scavenger scum.
http://www.dallasobserver.c...

They (the governmental officials) should ALL be facing §1983 criminal prosecutions and civil proceedings.

FFS, even foreign terrorism suspects held at GITMO are given more constitutional rights than these criminals extended to an American citizen involved IN A CONTRACTUAL CIVIL SUIT!

And, the OTHER Federal judge, who granted all of these government criminals IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AND LIABILITY IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

In a perfect world perhaps.

All I'm tryin' to do is keep from having Baron turned in to a hero.

I don't care if he is Al Sharpton. It is OUTRAGEOUS what these Federal officials have done to a citizen involved in a CONTRACT DISPUTE.

The bloody judge - FROM THE BENCH - threatened the defendant WITH DEATH after DEPRIVING him of his constitutional rights in an ex parte hearing.

Baron might be the biggest creep in the world, but NO ONE is Dred Scott in America today...AT LEAST THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

I haven't read the transcripts, so i don't know what was said. In the article, there is a lot of "he said" and "he did",
Even the daily caller writes that the fifth circuit, about the best appeals court in the country, found fault in the way it was done, not what was done.

If you did not know the law, and the legal system, would go in to a court thinking you were the smartest person there and know that you had enough money to ignore the law, the judge, and even your own legal team?

This is basically what he did, for a decade. Firing and refusing to pay lawyers seemingly on whims. Judges deny civil rights every day to persons in their courtrooms.

This FEDERAL JUDGE intimated that he had the power to direct the UNITED STATES MILITARY to act against an AMERICAN CITIZEN ON AMERICAN SOIL as though he was Commander-in-Chief and such action would be legal in the first place.

That, in and of itself, should be just cause to remove the judge from the bench. If he believes he can sic the MILITARY on an American on America soil, he is not only WOEFULLY CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLITERATE; he is VIOLATING THE OATH HE TOOK TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and, evidently, seems to think that the United States is now under some form of martial law. This is the kind of statement one expects to hear from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey…NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE IN AMERICA.

The threats Judge Furguson made in his official capacity are tyrannical. If the Left is truly afraid of ‘Second Amendment People’, as they claim, it would behoove them to refrain from making such, which could easily and foreseeably (in the not too distant future) give ‘those people’ a very legitimate reason to believe that the ‘Tree of Liberty…must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants’.

'This is basically what he did, for a decade. Firing and refusing to pay lawyers seemingly on whims. Judges deny civil rights every day to persons in their courtrooms.'

1. He WON the first SIX civil cases. If the case dragged out for a decade, whose fault is that? What blame do Munish Krishan and judiciary bear? Any at all?

2. Yes, judges deny civil rights to people every day in their courtroom, but...And, THIS IS KEY: They do it AFTER some basic due process.

Name a case where a HUMAN BEING has been held in receivership since slavery FOR ANY REASON in the United States.

Name a case where an American citizen has been denied his right to counsel in an ex parte hearing - the very existence of which was denied to the defendant - even though he has not been convicted of anything.

Name a case where an American citizen has been denied his right to freedom of speech even though he has not been convicted of anything.

Name a case where an American citizen has been denied his right to earn a legal income even though he has not been convicted of anything.

Name a case where an American citizen has been denied his right to travel even though he has not been convicted of anything.

I would ask you to name a case where an American citizen has had his property taken without due process, but we currently have civil forfeiture laws (where property is taken from people who haven't been charged with a crime nor allowed due process), which violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.

Yes, Americans lose their civil and constitutional rights - even their right to life - in this country, but it usually happens ONLY after they have had a right to defend themselves. One cannot defend himself nor even imagine a 'fair' hearing when a judge meets secretly in his chambers with adversarial agents to conspire to use the power and authority (which, in this case, even the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the judge had overstepped) of the government to deprive a citizen of his basic constitutional rights.

Look, I'm NOT disagreeing with your basic premise. But the only reason this case will be remembered is because it was compared to slavery. What happened to Baron was not slavery. Sure he was denied rights, some of which i agree with.

He and Krishan were suing each other multiple times. Two sleazebags who figured out how to hijack domain names and hold them hostage from regular folks wanting a website. That is neither here nor there, but to give perspective of what the cases were about. It was a strange time on the internet. I haven't checked in a long time, but whitehouse.com may still go to a porn site.

The case had been going on for a long time before this action was taken. An action to keep baron from further delaying the legal process. Baron was the one dragging this case out.

The cases you want me to cite are tangents to what is involved here.

No, the cases about which I asked are NOT tangential to what is involved here.

If a Federal judge met with, say, a gay couple and GLAAD secretly in chambers to conspire to place into bodily receivership and deprive the Christian owners of a bakery of their property, right to counsel, rights to due process, right to travel, right to earn a legal income, etc, would you still feel the same way?

Without question, people involved in civil cases can be complete assholes. I know this because I've either represented them, defended others against them, or had to appear in front of them. Try being an attorney in a divorce proceeding involving wealthy clients. Some of the cases that I could tell you about from personal experience would curl your hair. I had a friend that was an attorney in Mississippi. He once told me about a case where a couple fought over the decades-old high chair and other baby items that once were used by their deceased daughter. That case went on for years and years and years. Unfortunately, these kinds of things happen in a judicial system such as ours.

And, yet, I've never witnessed anything like what has occurred here. It should alarm everyone.

Of course it alarmed me...several years ago. That's why I looked in to it.

Look up Jeff (or Jeffrey) Baron and Ondova. There are basically two sides, Jeff's side, and those trying to stay neutral. Jeff is not the naive slub he is now being made out to be. He is really mad that he didn't make out like the other local internet entrepreneur, Mark Cuban. Baron brought this on himself. Even some of those on his side admit that he is a self absorbed self described internet genius. He was not the victim in these lawsuits, sometimes he was a predator.

I figure Jeff thinks enough time has passed that he can bring this up again and play the victim. IIRC, everybody except Baron agreed that the extreme actions were distasteful but necessary. And all because of the actions taken by Baron.

I bet you do have some stories. Having been there, they are stories that I probably don't want to hear.
The legal system really turned me off of the law.

'IIRC, everybody except Baron agreed that the extreme actions were distasteful but necessary.'

And, '97% of scientists believe that humans are responsible for climate change!'

You see, this is why we have RIGHTS and live in a REPUBLIC. A majority or 'consensus' must be prevented from engaging in 'distasteful' actions that 'overstep' the government's authority, as the appellate court found, in an explicit attempt to deprive a citizen of his basic constitutional rights. I do not want the be the sheep (even if I am a bad, bad, black sheep) when the two wolves vote on what's for dinner.

The court doesn't have to hear a case. Judges dismiss cases every day in America. They also impose sanctions on lawyers that file frivolous suits. They do not, however, get to deny constitutional rights, protections, privileges and immunities to Americans without basic due process and threaten to use the 'Navy and Army' against them in any manner, especially one that could result in extrajudicial killings.

Sometimes the judge is right in taking extreme actions, see Solomon.
Sometimes he is wrong, see Roy Bean...

'Sometimes the judge is right in taking extreme actions, see Solomon.'

Solomon isn't a Federal judge who swore to uphold the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.

'Sometimes he is wrong, see Roy Bean...'

Or Judge Furguson, whom the 5th Circuit found had 'overstepped' his authority.

Tenacious, ain't ya'.

Dang Texas judges...

When it comes to constitutional rights and civil liberties, yeah, I am. I don't trust the government, which is why I insist on protecting our rights.

Good, that's what i have been waiting for.
What would Judge Sophie do in this case?

I know what judge cozmo would have done.

What is 'this' case? The bankruptcy? The putting of a human being into receivership? The contract case?

If I understand correctly, the defendant filed for bankruptcy. If his filing is legitimate and he is declared bankrupt, then any party with a judgment against him could join the rest of his creditors in dividing any assets or the monies gained from the court-ordered sale of assets.

If I believed that the defendant was engaging in frivolous behaviour, I would have sanctioned his lawyer and, perhaps, held him in contempt. I could have sent him to jail AFTER a hearing...something that he could appeal to a higher court.

I wouldn't have issued the unconstitutional threats that the judge made from the bench, participated in an ex parte hearing to conspire with adversaries of the defendant with the express purpose of depriving the latter of his constitutional rights, or appoint Peter Vogel as the Special Master in violation of 28 U.S.C. 958.

That's a start.

Well, there ya' go. First we have to figure out which case this was attached to. Since Ferguson was a district judge, it was one of the civil suits.

IIRC, the bankruptcy was in 2003 and this case was attached to the bankruptcy. Vogel was most likely the trustee appointed by the federal court to oversee the ongoing operations of Baron's company. That makes Vogel the boss whether he knew Ferguson or not. There probably weren't a lot of established lawyers at the time familiar with internet business and the federal court, or US trustee for the Northern district of Texas, would have okayed Vogel being involved in a civil case with a district judge he knew. Hell, that was happening back in the late 70's. There aren't a lot of trustees, and they know a lot of the judges. Baron was using the district court and revolving attorneys to delay action in the bankruptcy. Those are pretty much the facts as i have known them.

Judge cozmo would have smacked Mr. Baron upside the head with a clue-by-four. had the bailiff replace him at the defendant's table with a carrot, then have him declared a foreign controlled enemy of the state, shipped him off to the oubliette at GITMO with the promise that he would not return until he had a single legal team that would represent him until the end of the case. I'm pretty sure none of that violates his civil rights. Um, maybe the clue-by-four is a gray area.

If there is anything I dislike more than real violations of civil rights, its lawfare.

My bad, the bankruptcy filing was in 2009. One day before a hearing to determine if Baron had violated an agreement. The federal case would take precedence stop the civil case for the time being...lawfare.

I don't care about the individuals involved, per se. I am concerned about the actions of the government and the precedent this matter sets. The parties involved can all be douche bags, but for our rights to be protected, we must demand that such be done for those with which we disagree or disdain. If we ignore these actions and statements because we hate the parties involved, who will protect us when the government acts similarly towards us? First, they came for...

'The legal system really turned me off of the law.'

I know how you feel, luv.

Kudos for using Niemooller instead of slippery slope or camel's nose.
The specifics of this case were so unique, and so over the top, that I don't see this happening. Unless Hillary gets to appoint a bunch of her kind of lawyers to the bench...

One of my top three reasons for voting the way I will come November.

'The specifics of this case were so unique, and so over the top, that I don't see this happening.'

Except that it may not have been limited to this 'unique' case...

'“I’ve never seen anything like it in almost 25 years practicing law,” California attorney Conrad Herring told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Herring got involved when he encountered the same court officers in a routine bankruptcy case, recounting that not only did they, “make up the facts against my client, they named me as a defendant as well, claiming I had breached a contract to which I was not even party.”

Forcing a lawyer to stand trial in his own case is illegal.

“Their unlawful strategy was to get rid of the lawyer so they could get to my unprotected client and his money,” Herring charges. “The very same people who abused the court system against my client were doing the same thing to Jeff, only on a much grander scale,” said Herring, explaining his interest in the case.

I read that and it made me rethink what I thought I knew.
Though, why would anybody make up facts in a routine bankruptcy case, and why is a California lawyer involved in a routine bankruptcy case?

His client could have had assets in Texas and been forced into bankruptcy by a Texan creditor. That's just one answer.

Then it ain't routine.

Sure it's routine. Having out-of-state property is not unusual - think of franchise owners that conduct business in more than one state. Further, the lawyer could have grown up in Texas or went to law school there or engaged in business in the state or just have been friends with a Texas-based client.

Nope, spent years interning and learning from some very good bankruptcy attorneys. The only thing that approaches the nastiness of a divorce case is a bankruptcy case. It would take three creditors (at least it used to) to agree to file in Texas and a very good reason to keep it there. Nothing routine about that.

Besides, bankruptcy law is Federal. Bankruptcy cases aren't filed in state courts under state jurisdiction and controlling law.

Bingo, there is something else up with that lawyers story. Gardier Wynn is a big firm. That is the only player i can think of that would be in the district court AND the federal building.

Was there something up with the 5th circuit when it found that Furguson had overstepped his authority, too?

As i stated earlier, the fifth circuit took issue with the way it was done. Not was was done.

But, the process IS important. It's called 'due process' for a reason.

And, unconstitutional means do not justify any end.

No shit. The fifth circuit heard it, made a proclamation. They could have declared more, but didn't.

You don't need to wait for Hillary. Furguson was a Bill Clinton appointee and Obama has seated more than half of the Federal judges on the bench today, if I recall correctly.

Sometimes even a dem will appoint a decent judge.
Not saying Ferguson is one of them, but UNT didn't want a controversial dean. Just sayin'.

'but UNT didn't want a controversial dean. Just sayin'.'

And, universities didn't want domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Angela Davis as professors either.

Oh wait.

Um, this is not Chicago.
UNT has shifted quite a bit left since they changed their name from NTSU, but they are trying to step back.
He is also the first dean of their law school. Nope, they wouldn't go there...

And, who thought Missou was what it was?

Trust me when I say this, but the fact that UNT LAW SCHOOL hired him doesn't mean anything. Law school faculties and administrations are much more left-leaning than the public, at large, or even their campuses.

....

...

tonights first feature was "cat woman from the moon"... it was ok.. worth a look if you're killing time.. 2 stars
the second feature was "Rocketship X M" from 1950.. this was a better film by far...
the rocket was headed for the moon... and something went wrong.. so they landed on Mars...
any movie with Mars in it cant be all bad... anyway this displeased the locals living on the red planet,,
the Martian peeps repelled the Earthling Landing Party with rocks and sticks... I kid you not..
the Earthling Intruders hastily beat it back to the ship for a quick departure... plus a big finish... 3 stars

Quote:

"any movie with Mars in it cant be all bad"

Ghosts of Mars

from the wires.. all within the last hour...
2 loud blasts heard in Thai seaside resort of Hua Hin; no official word on injuries - Reuters

Update: At least 3 injured in explosion at Thai resort city Hua Hin, just hours after 2 bombs killed 1 person and wounded 21, witnesses say - Reuters

1 injured when bomb explodes at beach in Phuket, Thailand, local media reports - Channel News Asia

Editor's note: A series of bombings have hit Thailand, just hours after two bombs at a resort killed one person and wounded 21 others. Blasts have been reported in Phuket, Surat Thani, and Hua Hin. The most recent blasts have reportedly killed at least one and wounded at least eight more.

Feds: ISIS operative arrested & criminally charged in Ohio this month has confirmed that the terrorist group has cells in Mexico

http://www.judicialwatch.or...

France Wants Members Of The Public To Take In Migrants As Official Centres Can’t Cope

http://www.breitbart.com/lo...

Non merci! Send them to #MuttiMerkel's house. She's the one who threw out the #Willkommenskultur mat.

See Mars, Saturn and Moon Align During Perseid Meteor Shower Tonight,,
,,,http://www.space.com/33707-...

@HillaryClinton-Linked Company: Our Alleged Payments To #ISIS Are Under ‘Review’

http://www.breitbart.com/20...

I saw this on another thread and it was too apropos to pass up.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-...