Bikers protest Westboro Baptist demonstrators at Arlington burial

Status
Not open for further replies.
scoutpilot said:
Stop asking questions! The Sea Lawyers have decided that the AG is lying. It's a done deal.

Next you'll ask dumb questions like "Did all the protestors stand 1000' away?" and "Did they stand near the church at any point?"

You lawyers...always wanting to find out the whole truth. Next you'll want to argue the merits of the case instead of resorting to hyperbole about shredding the bill of rights.

I've had enough of you, sir. Good day! :thumb:
Click to expand...

It may very well be from one of the lower courts' opinions on the case. I was just curious if it is a direct quote from such an opinion, or if one of the advocates drafted it in their brief to SCOTUS. I'm too lazy to research it.
 
"Nobody believes the official spokesman....but everybody trusts an unidentified source."

- Ron Nessen
 
sprog said:
It may very well be from one of the lower courts' opinions on the case. I was just curious if it is a direct quote from such an opinion, or if one of the advocates drafted it in their brief to SCOTUS. I'm too lazy to research it.
Click to expand...

Their location was (and still is) confirmed by many of the eyewitness, video, and written news accounts of the protest in Westminster, Maryland. The Patriot Guard riders were also there, further insulating the funeral from the 7 members of Westboro who were holding signs. None of this took place on the grounds of St Johns.

I don't think at any time has their location been in question, their location is a statement of fact, it was set up ahead of time by the MD State Police, Westminster City Police, and the Carroll County Sheriff's Department, at the request of Westboro Baptist Church.

The AG of MD was/is simply ignorant of this fact.
 
scoutpilot said:
Stop asking questions! The Sea Lawyers have decided that the AG is lying. It's a done deal.

Next you'll ask dumb questions like "Did all the protestors stand 1000' away?" and "Did they stand near the church at any point?"
Click to expand...

Funny how facts can always win over misstatements and ad-hominem attacks such as these. :rolleyes:

A simple reading of the PACER documents from the Court of Appeals would "learn you up" on the facts of the case, instead of relying on your own "knowledge" of what really happened.

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied
with local ordinances and police directions
with respect to being a certain distance from the
church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

Or you can continue to put your faith in The Washington Post's interview of the AG of MD.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Luigi59 said:
Funny how facts can always win over misstatements and ad-hominem attacks such as these. :rolleyes:

A simple reading of the PACER documents form the Court of Appeals would "learn you up" on the facts of the case, instead of relying on your own "knowledge" of what really happened.

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied
with local ordinances and police directions
with respect to being a certain distance from the
church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

Or you can continue to put your faith in The Washington Post's interview of the AG of MD.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is all I was asking. The facts that you laid out were undisputed at trial, and the language of your earlier quote seems to come from the 4th Circuit's opinion.
 
On second thought, everything that can be said to certain people has been said. I don't feel like a vacation.

If people have something to say besides the usual defaming of elected officials and the knee-jerk hair-on-fire schtick, this discussion could go somewhere. If those folks could be bothered to read the case and debate the merits.
 
Last edited:
You're right Scoutpilot, it's far more entertaining to attack those who you don't agree with.

We need to get that out of the way now, before that's banned too, because someone's feelings were hurt.



I don't like the group or their signs. I would hate for them to be around someone I cared for who died serving this country...but it's a right. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I would be interested in where that line is drawn.

I saw the AG of MD at a Nationals game, in the $325 President's Club seats. He's not a disinterested judge on the highest court. He is an elected official. Unfortunately, that drive to be re-elected determines who some in government approach issues, on both sides of the isle.

I'm sure he's well versed in law. He is no Supreme Court justice however. Maybe we should just wait and see what the Supreme Court as to say about it.
 
LineInTheSand said:
You're right Scoutpilot, it's far more entertaining to attack those who you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

You mean like ADM Fowler or the President or Katie Miller? If we ban that, many a poster of a certain affiliation will be rendered mute.

Now that we actually have the issues laid out and have rendered the hair-on-fire reactions moot, you want the thread to go silent pending the outcome? Got it. No real discussion, just Fox News-style sensationalism.

Maybe I can get a souvenir piece of the shredded Constitution.
 
scoutpilot said:
If people have something to say besides the usual defaming of elected officials and the knee-jerk hair-on-fire schtick, this discussion could go somewhere.
Click to expand...

Defaming an elected official? :confused:

Now who is exaggerating!

The AG of MD was caught, in print, lying about the facts of the case.

He stated:

Doug Gansler said:
They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held, waving signs...
Click to expand...

Which is indisputably a LIE. The AG of Maryland WAS LYING. And he was quoted in print by The Washington Post.

Yes, I am calling him out. He lied about the facts of the case to the WP.

And you want to defend him? :screwy:

Defame? That's laughable. The truth is always a defense to any claim of defamation, libel, or slander. The truth is the truth.

Talk about a "sea lawyer"!
 
Luigi59 said:
Defaming an elected official? :confused:

Now who is exaggerating!

The AG of MD was caught, in print, lying about the facts of the case.

He stated:



Which is indisputably a LIE. The AG of Maryland WAS LYING. And he was quoted in print by The Washington Post.

Yes, I am calling him out. He lied about the facts of the case to the WP.

And you want to defend him? :screwy:

Defame? That's laughable. The truth is always a defense to any claim of defamation, libel, or slander. The truth is the truth.

Talk about a "sea lawyer"!
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose a sea lawyer has to have gone to sea, so it doesn't apply to you. So it's armchair lawyering. The sea lawyer was for my favorite (and only) Coastie, LITS.

Regardless, he's a liar now? Ten minutes ago he was ignorant, but now he's making premeditated false statements? What evil will you elevate him to next?
 
They're only shredding the Bill of Rights right now....different piece of document. They may continue to disregard the Constitution, but it's still under protective glass.
 
scoutpilot said:
Well, I suppose a sea lawyer has to have gone to sea, so it doesn't apply to you. So it's armchair lawyering. The sea lawyer was for my favorite (and only) Coastie, LITS.
Click to expand...


No, sea lawyer was correct, that's what we called it too, in the wardroom of my ship.


EDIT: Just reread that....didn't realize it was directed at Luigi.
 
scoutpilot said:
Well, I suppose a sea lawyer has to have gone to sea, so it doesn't apply to you. So it's armchair lawyering. The sea lawyer was for my favorite (and only) Coastie, LITS.

Regardless, he's a liar now? Ten minutes ago he was ignorant, but now he's making premeditated false statements? What evil will you elevate him to next?
Click to expand...

Well we can start with his radical gun-control advocacy if you'd like.

His amicus briefs filed in support of the DC Govt's gun ban (in the Heller case) and his support for the Illinois gun ban (he believes that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States) don't make him many friends in my circle of acquaintance.

His direct quote:

“It’s almost absurd to think that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms to an individual,” Gansler says. http://www.washingtonian.com/print/articles/6/173/6732.html

But that's off topic, and gets away from your support of his incorrect facts as stated in The Washington Post about the case.
 
Last edited:
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":"msg"}'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0/06/AR2010100603950.html?sid=ST2010100602692


http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_PetitionerReply.pdf

This is what the case is about:

THE CASE REQUIRES THIS COURT TO BALANCE THE PHELPSES’
INTEREST IN ENGAGING IN TORTIOUS EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT
AGAINST THE COUNTERVAILING INTERESTS OF MR. SNYDER, AS BOTH TARGET AND CAPTIVE AUDIENCE, AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONDUCT
THIS BALANCING, LEAVING MR. SNYDER WITHOUT REMEDY FOR
THE HARM HE SUFFERED.​
iN THEIR RESPONSE
Click to expand...

Lest you all forget - the case is about Balancing the rights of the people. The question being -
Can the Government prevent one person from expressing their 'right of free speech' if doing so will infringe on the rights of another?
Who's rights shall prevail?​

FYI: The distance appears to be in dispute. Phelps says he was 1000 ft away. Snyder says Phelps was 200-300 ft away and he disrupted the funeral procession.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_PetitionerReply.pdf

This is what the case is about:
THE CASE REQUIRES THIS COURT TO BALANCE THE PHELPSES’
INTEREST IN ENGAGING IN TORTIOUS EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT
AGAINST THE COUNTERVAILING INTERESTS OF MR. SNYDER, AS BOTH TARGET AND CAPTIVE AUDIENCE, AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONDUCT
THIS BALANCING, LEAVING MR. SNYDER WITHOUT REMEDY FOR
THE HARM HE SUFFERED.
iN THEIR RESPONSE



Lest you all forget - the case is about Balancing the rights of the people. The question being -
Can the Government prevent one person from expressing their 'right of free speech' if doing so will infringe on the rights of another?
Who's rights shall prevail?​

FYI: The distance appears to be in dispute. Phelps says he was 1000 ft away. Snyder says Phelps was 200-300 ft away and he disrupted the funeral procession.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
Click to expand...

Seems like I've read all this somewhere before...
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Snyder says Phelps was 200-300 ft away and he disrupted the funeral procession.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
Click to expand...

From the sworn testimony at the trial:

Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

scoutpilot said:
Seems like I've read all this somewhere before...
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper, or would official trial documents perhaps, under penalty of perjury, be a little more reliable?

Doug Gansler says they were at the entrance to the Church, I thought you believed him? :rolleyes:
 
More from the appellate court's ruling:

First, as to the funeral protest itself, the Phelps did not "intrude" or
"pry" upon any private seclusion. The Phelps never intruded
upon a private place because their protest occurred at all times
in a public place that was designated by the police and located
approximately 1,000 feet from the funeral. Further, the Phelps
never confronted Snyder, and Snyder admits he could not see
the protest. Finally, there was no intrusion because the evidence
is undisputed that the church service was never disrupted.
The Phelps never entered the church, and they stopped
protesting when the church service began.​

:rolleyes:
 
Luigi59 said:
From the sworn testimony at the trial:

Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf



Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper, or would official trial documents perhaps, under penalty of perjury, be a little more reliable?

Doug Gansler says they were at the entrance to the Church, I thought you believed him? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you stopped shrieking about everyone's perceived injustices against you long enough to actually read and comprehend, you might have picked up that I was referring to her laydown of "this is what the case is about" and the fact that all those issues were laid out by me and others on the first page of this thread, and there's nothing like someone who doesn't read the thread and then pipes in to "clarify" the debate.

This may be hard for you to grasp, but JAM's response was chock full of information, and sometimes people make remarks about a portion of a response, not every last detail.

We all pretty much started ignoring you after you wheeled out your boatload of "red herrings" (in quotation marks because you so dearly love the phrase) about the Maryland AG.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top