I am not sure what it is you are not seeing? What you state is correct. My article makes two points. The first being the one you just made. The OTHER is the political complications of the United States prosecuting this case, because some of these countries involved in the Clinton Foundation/PizzaGate ring are not going to cooperate and will in fact fight the case should they be brought into it. And, in order to bring the case we HAVE to mention the countries involved. See what I am saying? We cannot accuse the CF of human trafficking but conveniently leave out half of the route in order to assuage countries who do not want their dirty deeds to see the light of day. It is a political nightmare.
I think you are missing the point. If you read the ENTIRE article this is not about say, for example, Haiti prosecuting the Clinton Foundation. This is about US being able to bring such a prosecution. In order to bring a case, we have to give EVIDENCE, and that evidence involves countries who are not only NOT going to cooperate but who will actively FIGHT the case. Get it now?
The point is that the US isn't competent to bring a prosecution. "Sacrifice a chicken to Molech" and "Minerva agrees" should tell you that you should get the basics right before attempting to make a case. The basics in this case being the relationship between law and theism.
Um, we are going to bring a theism case? I have no idea what you are doing, but I am trying to bust human-traffickers, not police people's spiritual lives.
In order to make a successful case it's important to find a court of competent jurisdiction. What I'm attempting to do is to describe why it's futile to attempt to make a case in a civil jurisdiction. Humanism is essential to the civil paradigm, and humans don't have natural rights, which makes it problematic to argue a case in those terms.
I do not think I suggested a civil case, did I? However, in our courts we DO have inalienable rights (see the Constitution), so I am not sure what you mean by "humans don't have natural rights".
Your inalienable rights derive from deity (see Blackstone), and are recognized by your Constitution. Being inalienable only means that you cannot be alienated from them without your consent.
Legal distinction between men and humans:
person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised. Black's 2nd (1910)
human being See MONSTER.
Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)
Did you see my latest blog (or any of the articles? I am posting updates as I can. Weather has been bad so progress has been slow, but I am still working on it. Thanks for asking!
You are right, it's very depressing, but an interesting fact I had not thought of. Podestas trip to North Korea involved getting Lings sister freed for "investigating child trafficking " correct? The pizza picture girls....
I just looked up Lisa on Wikipedia and they mention that she had done work on trafficking and that her sister Laura and her colleague Euna were trapped at the border and sentenced to 12 yrs for photographing people. Nothing mentioned about them doing investigative work on trafficking. It did mention that Bill Clinton was involved.
Yes, and if I remember right I saw on the news the picture of them getting off the plane and standing there with them on the tarmac was Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I did not know who TPodesta was then so can't remember seeing them. But the first time I saw that picture of Lisa Ling and her sister I knew exactly who they were. Just the perfect welcoming group for two young women and little girl. Podesta, Clinton and Gore. I wonder if there was a payment for their rescue and freedom? What have we heard from them as of late? Are they alright?
Moderators are driving me nuts as USUAL!!!!!
So, I re-posted to include only the title and description.
How long before they delete THIS ONE with ANOTHER excuse?
Five,
four,
three,
...
THANK YOU!!!!! FINALLY!!!!! LMAO Seriously, the other one was deleted because I put a comment in the description line saying I was posting the links in my blog to the comment section to keep the moderators happy and he told me to re-post without the remark.
▼ SaneGoatiSwear
lol seriously?
by all means, explain that here on voat. i'd love to hear it.
i'm of the mind wikileaks is 100% compromosed, but most probably by the cia, jesuit/childraping.. etc. not the ruskies...
▼ LaDonnaRae
I am not sure what it is you are not seeing? What you state is correct. My article makes two points. The first being the one you just made. The OTHER is the political complications of the United States prosecuting this case, because some of these countries involved in the Clinton Foundation/PizzaGate ring are not going to cooperate and will in fact fight the case should they be brought into it. And, in order to bring the case we HAVE to mention the countries involved. See what I am saying? We cannot accuse the CF of human trafficking but conveniently leave out half of the route in order to assuage countries who do not want their dirty deeds to see the light of day. It is a political nightmare.
▼ UglyTruth
AFAIK diplomatic immunity is only relevant at the state level, If you're pursuing a prosecution at common law it doesn't matter.
▼ LaDonnaRae
I think you are missing the point. If you read the ENTIRE article this is not about say, for example, Haiti prosecuting the Clinton Foundation. This is about US being able to bring such a prosecution. In order to bring a case, we have to give EVIDENCE, and that evidence involves countries who are not only NOT going to cooperate but who will actively FIGHT the case. Get it now?
▼ UglyTruth
The point is that the US isn't competent to bring a prosecution. "Sacrifice a chicken to Molech" and "Minerva agrees" should tell you that you should get the basics right before attempting to make a case. The basics in this case being the relationship between law and theism.
▼ LaDonnaRae
Um, we are going to bring a theism case? I have no idea what you are doing, but I am trying to bust human-traffickers, not police people's spiritual lives.
▼ UglyTruth
In order to make a successful case it's important to find a court of competent jurisdiction. What I'm attempting to do is to describe why it's futile to attempt to make a case in a civil jurisdiction. Humanism is essential to the civil paradigm, and humans don't have natural rights, which makes it problematic to argue a case in those terms.
▼ LaDonnaRae
I do not think I suggested a civil case, did I? However, in our courts we DO have inalienable rights (see the Constitution), so I am not sure what you mean by "humans don't have natural rights".
▼ UglyTruth
Your inalienable rights derive from deity (see Blackstone), and are recognized by your Constitution. Being inalienable only means that you cannot be alienated from them without your consent.
Legal distinction between men and humans:
person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised. Black's 2nd (1910)
human being See MONSTER. Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)
▼ LaDonnaRae
This is ALSO not a thread for moot court. If you do not have something relevant to the investigation, why are you wasting my time?
▼ Phenomenonanon
How's your trip.
▼ LaDonnaRae
Did you see my latest blog (or any of the articles? I am posting updates as I can. Weather has been bad so progress has been slow, but I am still working on it. Thanks for asking!
▼ Phenomenonanon
Yah a little bit.
▼ LaDonnaRae
I will be posting again soon. Unfortunately, I learned some things today I really was hoping were not true. So, stay tuned. LOL
▼ EQJ
Very interesting!
▼ LaDonnaRae
Depressing, actually, but I will do as I said and speak with the U.S. Attorney's office. If there is some way around this, I hope to find it.
▼ EQJ
You are right, it's very depressing, but an interesting fact I had not thought of. Podestas trip to North Korea involved getting Lings sister freed for "investigating child trafficking " correct? The pizza picture girls....
▼ carmencita
I just looked up Lisa on Wikipedia and they mention that she had done work on trafficking and that her sister Laura and her colleague Euna were trapped at the border and sentenced to 12 yrs for photographing people. Nothing mentioned about them doing investigative work on trafficking. It did mention that Bill Clinton was involved.
▼ EQJ
Laura ling was the one on podestas pizza jpg that said it doesn't get any better than this.
▼ carmencita
Yes, and if I remember right I saw on the news the picture of them getting off the plane and standing there with them on the tarmac was Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I did not know who TPodesta was then so can't remember seeing them. But the first time I saw that picture of Lisa Ling and her sister I knew exactly who they were. Just the perfect welcoming group for two young women and little girl. Podesta, Clinton and Gore. I wonder if there was a payment for their rescue and freedom? What have we heard from them as of late? Are they alright?
▼ EQJ
www.abc.net.au/news/image/1378746-3x4-700x933.jpg
▼ EQJ
I have a screenshot of them in North Korea but still have no idea how to post a screenshot to voat :(
▼ carmencita
Don't feel bad. I don't know how either. I will find it on the net.
▼ LaDonnaRae
Good question - ?
▼ LaDonnaRae
Moderators are driving me nuts as USUAL!!!!! So, I re-posted to include only the title and description. How long before they delete THIS ONE with ANOTHER excuse? Five, four, three, ...
▼ JoJoVoat
haha... I get it quite a bit.. frustrating and I didnt see what was wrong ether... youre funny tho. "-)
▼ LaDonnaRae
LOL I just never know with these people.
▼ wecanhelp
I don't personally see a problem with this as a Link post.
▼ LaDonnaRae
THANK YOU!!!!! FINALLY!!!!! LMAO Seriously, the other one was deleted because I put a comment in the description line saying I was posting the links in my blog to the comment section to keep the moderators happy and he told me to re-post without the remark.