Except last time it happened I was right about everything and /r/legaladvice was all wrong except one guy who they downvoted the shit out of, accused of not being a real lawyer, and I think removed their comment.
It's my haters who are retarded. I'm as much of a genius as I say I am. Just stating facts, not expecting it to get through to anyone who doesn't already know
I had already been arrested and released (which took like 45 mins). Went to discuss how it was a bullshit arrest and what I should do strategically on /r/legaladvice.
1 guy backed me up and told me not to worry about strategy because I already knew what I needed to know. This would have been reassuring, if not for how the other 99 dudes downvoted the shit out of him, accused him of not being a real lawyer, and I think the mods removed his comment.
These other 99 dudes then spent hours trying to convince me the First Amendment has been revoked and I'm probably a rapist in denial or something.
This one dude went back and forth with me for hours and hours, me being truly scared on the off chance he was right and basically begging him to actually prove his point by linking to a case with relevant precedent, him just basically being like "nah dude you'd just argue that precedent doesn't apply to your case," leaving me frantically trying to find any examples of what the fuck he was talking about, but unable to find anything because there were none.
Anyway, after all this, I changed my mind on representing myself, let a family friend who's a lawyer represent me, and he went up and made the exact same argument I would have made except he knew the Supreme Court case to cite. Took like 10 seconds.
Still definitely qualifies as one of the most ridiculous reddit experiences of my life. I literally went in asking if anyone could point me in the direction of the previous cases I'd need to cite or anything else I'd need representing myself. I mean, I wasn't even vague, I knew exactly what I needed, just knowledge of which previous case to cite because this seemed like something that certainly would have been settled in a federal court before. And not one person on the subreddit could give me that.
No, but for some reason you linked to the correct thread while describing your concept. You should write a movie about that. I wouldn't watch it, but someone with lower standards of writing quality than me surely would.
So I'm smashing air conditioners right now? I'm typing this with special keyboard air conditioners that you smash to get the letter you want? Like seriously, the fuck? You think because I smashed some air conditioners, my life must consist solely of nothing but smashing air conditioners? You need rehab
You said you'd hurt yourself if it meant hurting him significantly more. From what I'm hearing, you've hurt yourself by paying for an attorney and being charged, and he's totally fine with his order of protection.
So yeah, they were right. That's what's funny to me.
Bruh, he was suicidal over this shit. Probably still is when it bubbles up. Definitely hurt him more. Regardless, my priorities have changed with emotions wearing off, now I'm just glad I was able to help protect others from him.
I accused you of not knowing what the real world is like because you're still living with mommy. You then attempted to correct my grammar because I said parents instead of parent(s).
So far your epic life has consisted of getting high, being so unable to cope with being not-high that you stole a car, and breaking the air-conditioner of the man who let you stay at his house rent free when you would otherwise have been in jail. You have been more a drain on society at this point than everyone else in your high school class.
I'm saying you've never helped anyone not commit suicide, but in fact done the opposite, driven people deeper into psychological problems by threatening them and harassing them to the point of legal action being taken.
I feel like you just intentionally avoid saying anything correct or sensible
But she's still alive. I may have driven her deeper into psychological problems than she was at her peak of happiness while we were together, but she still upholds that she would have killed herself if I hadn't gotten her through that point in her depression. Same with countless other cuties, a lot of whom I didn't drive deeper into anything. Plus, you say "threatening and harassing" as if I was ever unkind or violent or angry or anything like that towards this girl, which you know I wasn't. You might pretend not to know, because you have this rule against stating anything true or reasonable, but I'm pretty sure you've read enough of my comments to instinctively grasp that I'm not the type of person to do that, and you're trying to use that to hurt my feelings by insinuating I would I guess? I'll tell you what, my girl is gonna be on a camping trip with her family with no internet or technology soon. I'll probably be pretty stressed that whole time, try hurting my feelings then if you want.
Same with countless other cuties, a lot of whom I didn't drive deeper into anything
Now tell me the one about your girlfriend in Canada.
Plus, you say "threatening and harassing" as if I was ever unkind or violent or angry or anything like that towards this girl, which you know I wasn't
You had an order of protection levied against you, twice. If you weren't unkind and angry, they probably wouldn't have done that.
You might pretend not to know, because you have this rule against stating anything true or reasonable
So close! Almost to self-awareness!
but I'm pretty sure you've read enough of my comments to instinctively grasp that I'm not the type of person to do that
Are you joking? The impression your comments give is a smug, narcissistic, idiot who can't understand why the bad things he does have consequences for a genius like him.
you're trying to use that to hurt my feelings by insinuating I would I guess
I'm trying to show you how you come off, IE a liar and narcissist who can't admit when he's done something wrong.
my girl is gonna be on a camping trip with her family with no internet or technology soon. I'll probably be pretty stressed that whole time, try hurting my feelings then if you want.
Are you going to assault her if I do? You're really close to that line with the other assault and the harassment.
If you weren't unkind and angry, they probably wouldn't have done that.
They didn't. She tried to get an order of protection but it never happened, probably because I never did that. The times I've had contact restraints I was indeed "unkind or angry" but those weren't romantic interests. Come on dude, be realistic here, why tf would I be that awful to someone I love so much?
The impression your comments give is a smug, narcissistic, idiot
The one where you were (correctly) told that you shouldn't get involved in Chad's business, and you admitted you were doing it on behalf of a girl who had an order of protection against you.
What...? Like... how was I supposed to know that was what you were referring to? How does that connect to calling me a liar? And what makes you think Levi is a chad or I was doing it on behalf of that girl? I'm so confused
Only had to two what..? And how would I be doing it on her behalf if she didn't ask? Do you not understand what doing something on someone's behalf is?
You only had 2 legaladvice posts you retard, unless you've been arrested more times and used an alt. You said she didn't ask you to do it, but you were doing it on her behalf. It's in the fucking description, how are you this dumb?
I'm too confused
Not suprising.
little false details you sprinkle in
Please stop lying, it's hurting everyone around you and you won't stop until you've made them cut you out of their lives
You said she didn't ask you to do it, but you were doing it on her behalf. It's in the fucking description, how are you this dumb?
Went to the post, ctrl+f "behalf," nothing. The fuck are you talking about? And again, how does any of this connect to the above where you said I already admitted "it" and called me a liar?
Wow, no result for the exact word behalf. God you're so smart, I can't imagine what it would be like to be you. Get back to me when you've actually read it.
Hey man I just wanna say this from the bottom of my heart. If you wanna fix the world that's great. That's what I've wanted to do since I was a kid. I've had 10 surgeries since 15 some of which I was bed bound or wheelchair bound for months. I still managed to grow a animal shelter and rescue. There was no small loan of a million dollars or even donations in general the first few years. I built what I needed with discarded materials and looked on Craigslist daily for stuff being thrown away I could make use of. Now I got around 400 of a single type of turtle alone last year. You keep saying you'll fix the world but you aren't trying to do anything it seems. Please seek help and maybe then you will fix the world dude.
I'm sorry, but what part of the "narrative" sounds unlikely?
As far as I can figure, you're either:
Not aware of the specific limitations of the First Amendment, therefore struggling to believe it applied
Not aware of overreach in the justice system, therefore struggling to believe I could be arrested on obviously false charges
Not aware of some even more simple and well-known detail than the above two, like, some detail I can't even imagine you struggling with
All of the above
In any case, you are not only far from a "pretty good lawyer," you aren't even really a lawyer. You might be someone with a law degree, you might even have cheated your way through the bar, but you can't call yourself a lawyer.
LOL. Legal, judicial, AND systemic knowledge? Oh my!! I must have missed a couple classes in lawl school.
I only know about your case what you've put in this thread. So... mostly just a story about how you heroically defied the morons on the internet and then how you were exonerated by a lawyer (in 10 mins!) you didn't even need. LOL. And of course you didn't need the lawyer, you just need an itty bitty citation to a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the Court interpreted and applied the First Amendment just as you knew it should be interpreted and applied.
Only you couldn't find that citation yourself despite your enoooormous brain and apparent internet access because, I guess, Google Scholar got hacked by the Chinese just to impede the ability of America's greatest genius from escaping an overreaching judicial system which depends on nooooobody fucking knowing a case in our nation's highest court that was so fucking on point that all the baddies had to give up and let you free when it was uttered in open court. Was the case called Expelliamus v. The Authoritative but Overreaching Allocation of Values?
I said 10 seconds, but I was exaggerating. It was more like a few hundred seconds. Definitely way less than 10 minutes, probably less than 5. I'd say 3 or 4.
And of course you didn't need the lawyer, you just need an itty bitty citation to a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the Court interpreted and applied the First Amendment just as you knew it should be interpreted and applied.
Of course, anyone who has read the First Amendment and done 5 minutes of research on its precedents would also have known.
Only you couldn't find that citation yourself despite your enooormous brain and apparent internet access because, I guess, Google Scholar got hacked by the Chinese
OK so you're being very colorful with your speech to hide how it has no content at all, but your point here seems to be that it would have been easy to find the citation I needed with Google Scholar, and that any intelligent person in my position would use Google Scholar?
First, I had no idea Google Scholar had court transcripts, I thought it was scientific papers and such. You seem to have intelligence confused with magically knowing everything.
Second, I just went to Google Scholar. Typed "supreme court case first amendment slander," lots of results to sift through. If any of those results contain what I was looking for, it would still take longer to sift through them than to just ask a lawyer (at least under my presumption that a lawyer would have at some point learned the very basics of how the First Amendment works). Do you have an alternative search query to try? Can you find the relevant case there?
Also, just to be funny, I'm gonna translate your whole comment to just the literal statements you were making, no colorful wording:
You're using big words like "legal, judicial, and systemic" trying to sound smart. They don't actually exist.
But they do. Legal knowledge is knowledge of laws, like the First Amendment. Judicial knowledge I intended to mean things like precedent on how the First Amendment has been applied. Systemic knowledge would be like the basic fact that police sometimes make false arrests and prosecutors virtually always give false charges, if nothing else than just out of hopes that the final verdict will settle on the real charges after negotiation in court. You'd have to know that to be a lawyer. You cannot call yourself a lawyer if you lack awareness of such a basic fact of the system, or of incredibly basic laws and judicial history.
I only know about your case from what you've put in this thread. So...mostly just a story about how you didn't listen to morons on the internet and then you prevailed in court with professional representation, and it didn't take long. You claim you could have prevailed without the lawyer, if he'd have told you the case precedent you asked him about. You also claim you were somehow able to predict how the Supreme Court would interpret the First Amendment in this context.
Do you realize how retarded all of this sounds without the embellishment? Yeah dude, a lawyer got a favorable plea deal without taking a long time. Fucking unfathomable right? And someone actually READ the First Amendment? But it's a whole paragraph long! And then they fucking GOOGLED how it's been APPLIED in the past??? MAAAADDD WORLDDD
Only you couldn't find that citation yourself. I think it should have been easy to find if you were really as smart as you say. Google Scholar could find it easily. I bet you made this up and the case is entirely fictional.
Except there's no reason it would be easy to find, Google Scholar couldn't find it easily, and I guess actually I wouldn't put it past this lawyer to just lie about a case and assume nobody's gonna question him. I also wouldn't put it past the prosecutor to be like "the fuck? I've never heard of that case. Whatever, let's just get this over with." So you might have had one tiny little sprinkle of truth in your comment, I can't say for sure since I don't remember the name he cited.
Anyway, you're extremely dumb and I really, really highly doubt you actually have anything resembling legal credentials.
Legal knowledge is knowledge of the first amendment. Judicial knowledge is "things like precedent on how the first amendment has been applied." Bahhahaha. This is gold. You should be a law professor. And a professor of jurisprudence.
And an expert w an honorary doctorate in expertise! Like how prosecutors always bring "false charges" in order to settle on the "real charges" after negotiation "in court." LOLOLOL.
Oh man. Oh man. Am I getting trolled? Is this real? Are you real? This is the best thing that's ever happened to me on Reddit.
Like how prosecutors always bring "false charges" in order to settle on the "real charges" after negotiation "in court." LOLOLOL.
Yeah, you're definitely not a lawyer if you think that's far-fetched. At least not one who's ever worked anywhere near the United States' criminal justice system.
It's funny because it's nonsense. I do know what you mean, of course. It's just funny that you can't say it without dragging nonsense concepts and simple factual errors into your sentence like a dog tracking mud in the house.
But there are no factual errors. That's what happens, they give trumped-up and usually explicitly false charges, to provide a negotiatory buffer and hopefully end up with proper charges sticking. If you really don't understand this, you're just making it incredibly obvious that you're some dude pretending to be a lawyer, to everyone with the tiniest bit of experience with the justice system.
Yah either that or I am a lawyer and I do know what I'm talking about and I'm laughing at you for your bizarre and inaccurate description of plea bargaining.
Oh man. Oh man. Am I getting trolled? Is this real? Are you real? This is the best thing that's ever happened to me on Reddit.
If it is performance art, it has been a long, long con. It is five years since /u/HStark went full-retard the first time on /r/atheism. He has been fedorable ever since.
Welllll that's the very portion of your narrative that's the most unrealistic! It's not that anyone (even someone w an astounding IQ like yourself) can find the first amendment case law pertinent to their situation.
It's the idea that there would be a case which was 1) "on all fours" (as they call it in the YouTube video I watched called "how to pretend to be an attorney online") with yours, 2) exculpatory, AND 3) identifiable to dirty shirt criminal attorneys UNLESS that fuckin case shows up on the Wikipedia entry for "free speech".
Lololol. My favorite part of this is you insisting I'm not an attorney. Because you and I are the only ones who care whether I'm an attorney and I'm the only one who knows whether I'm an attorney. Only God knows if I'm a good attorney and only my malpractice insurance carrier cares if I'm a competent one. But lololol it makes this whole exchange priceless for me.
Maybe it's part 3 that got you then? The family friend is far-and-away the best local criminal attorney. Like notoriously so; I have criminal friends who flipped the fuck out at how lucky I was to have him representing me the first time I was in court.
Was that seriously it? You couldn't believe I'd have a lawyer good enough to do this?
If you're a real lawyer, you've just revealed to me that the criminal justice system is even more fucked than I've thought. Like, holy shit, I didn't realize it'd be far-fetched in the eyes of an actual lawyer, for another actual lawyer to know such a piece of precedent. I thought Constitutional lawyers are there for extremely obscure or complex grey-area shit and any lawyer would still understand the basic premise of the First Amendment allowing you to spread knowledge of people and know the legal citations to prove it. Apparently I was way off
Because you and I are the only ones who care whether I'm an attorney and I'm the only one who knows whether I'm an attorney. Only God knows if I'm a good attorney and only my malpractice insurance carrier cares if I'm a competent one.
*slow clap transitioning to cheering and wild hooting at the second half of the last sentence*
"I can't say for sure since I don't remember the name he cited."
What?! This was a shining moment. A crowning achievement. You triumphed! And you can't remember the name of the case? How is it not emblazoned on your heart and soul?
I'm beginning to doubt you're as smart as you say you are.
It was thrown out from the perspective of Levi Cohen, serial rapist, because the plea deal allows me to continue telling people about him. I don't remember actually saying it was thrown out, but if so I was just simplifying the fact that the court didn't give a fuck about this kid's charges on me and... I dunno how else to put it man, the shit was "adjudicated on contemplation of dismissal" with everyone knowing it's going to be dismissed and Levi not getting anything he wanted out of it except a couple weeks of thinking he'd win. I count that as thrown out
adjudicated on contemplation of dismissal
It's "adjourned in contemplation," not "adjudication on contemplation." If the no-contact order was unconstitutional, that's not a legitimate ruling, because ACD contains the possibility that the case will not be dismissed if you don't abide by the law for a specified period of time. Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is a ruling made when you broke the law, but not super badly, and the judge decides justice would be served best if he dismissed the case in a while as long as you stayed out of trouble. It would be incoherent to adjourn contemplating dismissal -- meaning if you don't keep your nose clean, the case isn't dismissed -- while also saying you can keep doing the thing that got you arrested in the first place.
It's "adjourned in contemplation," not "adjudicated on contemplation."
I've absolutely heard it both ways in my court dealings. You're right ACD stands for adjournment, but I was also told the case was adjudicated out. I never really grasped why they seem to use the two words interchangeably when I've been in court so far.
If the no-contact order was unconstitutional, that's not a legitimate ruling
Yeah, no shit. Still looks better for the prosecutor's record than an actual outright dismissal. Barely makes a difference to me, I only gave half a fuck about that prosecutor and wasn't about to risk delaying my actual goals by trying to fight the prosecutor and Levi at the same time. My lawyer knew this so he just explained the illegitimacy of it for the transcript's sake and then asked me if I'd accept it.
I feel like you don't have much courtroom experience at all. Local lawyers in a county tend to know most of each other. Illegitimate rulings probably happen in like half of serious cases, because prosecutors and defenders at some point are like "fuck it, fine" instead of being sworn enemies like in the movies. The prosecutor knew my lawyer didn't want to spend a lot of time on this case, my lawyer knew the prosecutor didn't want to spend a lot of time on this case, they found a mutual agreement that mostly accomplished both sides' goals. That's, to the letter, exactly how a LOT of criminal cases play out.
Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is a ruling made when you broke the law
Not in this case. In this case it was made when I didn't break the law but the prosecutor also didn't want to admit he pressed charges on a simple case with Supreme Court precedent against it. I'm guessing that would look extremely bad for him and he was a young dude who's seemed very passionate about his career every time I've dealt with him. He doesn't wanna get chewed out by the DA (or ADA above him? I dunno the chain of command) for that dumb of a mistake.
It would be incoherent to adjourn contemplating dismissal -- meaning if you don't keep your nose clean, the case isn't dismissed -- while also saying you can keep doing the thing that got you arrested in the first place.
Yeah, it was incoherent. Incoherent rulings happen. It wasn't my first or my last incoherent ruling from a court. It was probably the #1 most incoherent I've gotten though.
Also note the judge himself didn't say I could continue. My lawyer stated that enough times for everyone. If you'd been there to see the mannerisms and facial expressions between my lawyer and the prosecutor and the judge, or if you had more court room experience in general, it'd be pretty clear the judge and the prosecutor both just wanted to avoid a clear legal admission that they were wrong. I think they see themselves as upholders of the image of the system. I definitely felt like what I was agreeing to in the "wink wink nudge nudge" field of the room was to not cause any problems for the court. Like you could see in the judge's face his thought process was "alright, I guess I can't use these charges to stop you, but you're being a dumbass with this whole thing and if you commit an actual crime on this kid and end up in my court room again I'm going to be pissed." And I can see why, it'd reflect terribly on him and the prosecutor if they hit me with a bullshit charge and had to let me go and then someone got hurt in the same situation he had tried to charge me over.
Can you really not grasp any of this? You seem to mildly know your shit, so it's odd to me that you don't have the courtroom experience to know all this stuff happens. Does it make more sense to you now that I've spelled it out?
Honestly, the whole reason I'm engaging you people and telling you all of this is because on a case-by-case basis, each person makes me curious. I want to find out what's behind each commenter hating on me. I want to find the smart ones. I tell you all these details because I'm curious whether you'd understand any better once you know them.
I'm not hating on you. Your narrative is incredibly inconsistent. Any one of the inconsistencies I could understand. Judges sometimes make bad rulings because it's convenient. Maybe the judge issued a ruling that he knew was wrong because he wanted to spare the prosecution the embarrassment of having a case dismissed (despite the fact that having a no-contact case dismissed would genuinely mean nothing to a prosecutor's career).
I guess there could be jurisdictions where ACD is called "adjudication in contemplation of dismissal" by judges and attorneys, although that makes no sense because ACD is not an adjudication but is an adjournment.1
Maybe there is a Supreme Court case that makes it clear that no-contact orders as applied here are unconstitutional, one that you somehow can't find using Google Scholar, nor remember the case name, despite being the smartest dude around. Maybe that case did somehow completely blindside the prosecution because neither they nor anyone responsible for administering no-contact orders bothered to keep up with SC rulings, despite the fact that there are like 80 a year, each of which has a very brief syllabus, and the majority of which have nothing to do with criminal law.
Maybe the best criminal lawyer around thought that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was (a) called something else and (b) a plea deal.
Any one of those I could believe. I could probably believe a couple of them put together. All of them? Not a chance.
I can find google results for "Adjudication in Contemplation of Dismissal" in NY, but they're all crappy legal resources (AttackThatTicket.com, for instance) or hack law firms pulling all their information directly from AttackThatTicket.com, and the statute AttackThatTicket cites refers only to "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. The "adjudication" formulation is uncommon enough that NYT issued a correction when they wrote an article referring to it as an adjudication.
(despite the fact that having a no-contact case dismissed would genuinely mean nothing to a prosecutor's career)
I'd think over a simple First Amendment citation, yes it would be a mildly big deal. Not a game-changer, but still something to avoid.
I guess there could be jurisdictions where ACD is called "adjudication in contemplation of dismissal" by judges and attorneys, although that makes no sense because ACD is not an adjudication but is an adjournment.
The first ACD I got, my lawyer (who I'm not exaggerating about the prestige of) talked to me to make sure I understood that if anyone asks if I've ever been convicted of a crime, the answer is I've been adjudicated. He made this super clear. You sure you know the word better than him?
Maybe there is a Supreme Court case that makes it clear that no-contact orders as applied here are unconstitutional, one that you somehow can't find using Google Scholar, nor remember the case name, despite being the smartest dude around.
I wasn't joking when I said I can see my lawyer just making it up though. He's been doing this a long, long, long fucking time, he might have enough experience not to have any worry of the person double-checking. I wish I could remember the name.
I dunno why you act like forgetting the name of a case that I heard mentioned a year ago reflects poorly on my intelligence though. There's a difference between "idiot savants" who can memorize everything they ever see, and actual smart people.
Maybe that case did somehow completely blindside the prosecution because neither they nor anyone responsible for administering no-contact orders bothered to keep up with SC rulings
There were one or two cops that arrested me. Don't think they'd keep up with SC rulings. A court clerk who issued the paper, don't think she would either. Then the prosecutor and judge. Who didn't look shocked or anything, the judge just looked at my lawyer like "what the fuck? OK..." I mean, I wouldn't say the look on his face indicated that he'd say he felt "blindsided." Maybe it's a stretch to say the case applies, and he just didn't feel like arguing on it. I honestly don't know, I can pick up on facial expressions pretty well but that doesn't mean I magically know every thought in their heads. I did find it highly odd how the prosecutor/judge didn't just know to begin with that the arrest was Unconstitutional, and yet literally didn't state any thoughts at all on the cited precedent.
Who are all these people "responsible for administering no-contact orders" though?? Is that a more complicated process in your jurisdiction? Here you just sign a paper.
Anyway, you can think I'm lying, but I haven't actually lied about a single detail of this
I'd think over a simple First Amendment citation, yes it would be a mildly big deal.
You'd be mistaken. The shame, insofar as there was any (which there wouldn't be) would be on whoever issued the no-contact.
You sure you know the word better than him?
A, yes. B, I don't think any of this happened.
I wasn't joking when I said I can see my lawyer just making it up though.
That's malpractice. I'm not joking when I say I can't see a well-respected lawyer doing that.
I also find it odd how you're acting like it would be easy to find on Google Scholar. Why don't you go ahead and find it then?
Because I don't think it exists. I googled "First Amendment" "no contact" "supreme court" and found nothing from the US supreme court -- no legal blogs, no forum posts, nothing. I searched "first amendment" and "no contact" in Google Scholar, limiting my results to the SC, and found nothing even remotely relevant. I used Westlaw to search "No Contact" and "first amendment" and "harass," and again found nothing, despite the fact that Westlaw's search function is quite good and would also return results for things like "order not to contact."
So then I searched through secondary sources available on Westlaw wondering if I'd just missed something. I found a very nice discussion of restraining orders and no-contact orders in American Jurisprudence 2d, which is current through Feb 2017. Not a single goddamn mention of no-contact orders being unconstitutionally vague.
Who are all these people "responsible for administering no-contact orders" though?? Is that a more complicated process in your jurisdiction? Here you just sign a paper.
When laws are found unconstitutional either as-applied or facially, those laws aren't just left alone because "well okay then." Someone is responsible for letting the police know not to enforce them anymore or to enforce them differently. That is the person I was referring to.
You'd be mistaken. The shame, insofar as there was any (which there wouldn't be) would be on whoever issued the no-contact.
That was him. The judge was just following his orders there. Not everything works the way it's supposed to on paper.
A, yes. B, I don't think any of this happened.
You're delusional if you can't even believe a basic normal legal case happened but you also think you know more law then the best local criminal attorney in Ulster County
Because I don't think it exists. I googled "First Amendment" "no contact" "supreme court" and found nothing from the US supreme court -- no legal blogs, no forum posts, nothing. I searched "first amendment" and "no contact" in Google Scholar, limiting my results to the SC, and found nothing even remotely relevant. I used Westlaw to search "No Contact" and "first amendment" and "harass," and again found nothing, despite the fact that Westlaw's search function is quite good and would also return results for things like "order not to contact."
None of that shit would be likely to find it. I'm simply enough smarter than you that I knew web search engines wouldn't be smart enough. Dunno why it's so hard for you to grasp.
And "because you don't think it exists." Notice your circular logic. You can't believe this is real because it'd be easy to find in a search. You can't believe it'd be hard to find in a search, because instead you just believe it's not real. Fucking retarded.
Note that this isn't even a crazy story. I'm a great storyteller and I couldn't even make this turn of events sound noteworthy. You're having trouble believing completely normal shit happened. It's a remarkable level of stupidity.
Not a single goddamn mention of no-contact orders being unconstitutional restrictions on First Amendment rights.
It's not my fault you're both too stupid to realize a search engine can't find what you're looking for, and too stupid to know what you're looking for. To make it easier, you're looking for a case where a third-party-contact clause of a contact restraint was used to gag order someone. Obviously contact restraints themselves are not Unconstitutional.
When laws are found unconstitutional either as-applied or facially, those laws aren't just left alone because "well okay then." Someone is responsible for letting the police know not to enforce them anymore or to enforce them differently.
There's no way this happens often enough for that to be a thing. I'm sure that fairly regularly, some police dept in America makes a mistake like this, but I doubt any single police dept (except maybe one too corrupt to change) is doing it regularly enough to need new protocol.
Can you explain why you think the phrases "no contact" and "first amendment" would not appear in a Supreme Court decision invalidating some contact restraints on first amendment grounds?
Yes. A westlaw search gave me 52 SC cases including those phrases, once I filtered out the stuff about employment law. It was quick to browse through them.
Well I'm not sure the phrase "no contact" was ever uttered in this case. My jurisdiction uses the phrase "contact restraint" rather than your "no-contact order." I think the phrase was still said, but are you searching entire transcripts?
Either way, try "third party contact," or any other names that clause might have in other jurisdictions, instead of "no contact."
The West publishing company has been the primary authority on US case law since the 18th century. They are the primary source of "reporters," volumes of case law collecting published opinions that set the legal precedents for the US judicial system. Many states do not bother to publish their own reporters any more, relying instead on West's as the official record.
Westlaw is their online arm. It collects all state and federal published opinions and has a powerful set of research tools including a lot of secondary information on cases that doesn't show up with tools like Google scholar.
All of which is to say, yes, dipshit, a Westlaw search includes all Supreme Court cases and would find it immediately if queried.
See it's shit like this that makes me think you're trolling, but then I think "he's just mad because he found someone who is both than him, more knowledgeable than him, and equally willing to give up his time to prove him wrong"
He proved you wrong on most things you were willing to answer. Most you just kept deflecting and stalling on. Hopefully he keeps replying to you so you eventually seek the help you need man.
Well I'm not sure the phrase "no contact" was ever uttered in this case. My jurisdiction uses the phrase "contact restraint" rather than your "no-contact order." I think the phrase was still said, but are you searching entire transcripts?
They're not transcripts, they're opinions (which are the only part with precedential value).
Also, is that searching every Supreme Court case that's ever happened? If it's only recent ones, there's zero reason to think this would be remotely recent.
Yes.
RESULTS: Nothing with "not to contact" from the SC. Nothing with "third party contact" from the SC. No cases anywhere in the 2d circuit including "third party contact" and "first amendment."
26 cases with "restraining" & "contact" & "first amendment."
Buffer zones around abortion clinics.
Case about whether you can restrain amicable parties from contacting each other (a state court tried to stop a union from helping the families of victims of unsafe working conditions, got benchslapped).
Another abortion clinic case.
Something about disclosure requirements.
a communist party freedom of expression thing.
State can't prohibit lawyers from advertising via direct mail.
Freedom of the press case. AP tried to say it was immune to federal regulation, lost.
Case about expenditure of public funds.
Prison conditions case.
SEC attempted to crack down on publication of certain investment advice.
Something about validating or choosing not to validate passports for travel to Cuba.
SC holds that statutory protections for unions does not implicitly incorporate all 1A assembly and expression protections.
Use of public funds for textbooks case.
Gang loitering statutes preventing gang members from hanging out together sometimes isn't unconstitutional.
You need at bare minimum a fact-finding hearing to support a gag order permanently enjoining the press from publishing the names of jurors.
Something about the effects of a failure to consent to a welfare officer's entry.
Statements that contribute to unfair labor practices are not part of 1st amendment protected speech.
Another abortion case.
Use of third parties as shills does not violate the Sherman Act (not because it's protected but just because it doesn't violate the Sherman Act).
Something about stun guns that only shows up because a justice made an analogy to first amendment protections.
Suppressing evidence seized pursuant to unconstitutional obscenity statute was a judicial overreach.
Another abortion thing (requiring doctors to provide certain information) was unconstitutional
Motion pictures are protected under the first amendment.
Something about minority business enterprises (first amendment only comes up by analogy).
Facial challenges to restrictions on grounds of overbreadth do not confer standing unless the plaintiff is actually affected.
provisions of Civil Rights Act creating right to recover punitive damages for violations of Title VII do not apply to Title VII case pending on appeal when statute was enacted.
That was a pain of the ass, but the case you're referencing, if it existed, would absolutely have "first amendment," "contact," and "restraining." The fact that no such case appears tells me that you're lying. I'm done.
One, it's incredible that a dispute over whether I'm lying about completely normal expected shit happening has caused you to put in this much effort to prove me wrong, and now you're "done."
I'm still not lying in real life though, regardless of your insecurity-addled brain's version of reality. Maybe it was about the charge itself rather than the contact restraint?
I mean the main point he was making with the citation was that I haven't committed a crime. Telling people this kid's a rapist is First Amendment protected, I'm not guilty of harassment. Perhaps the query should be about people being charged with harassment or slander rather than anything to do with the contact restraint. Undermining the charge would undermine the contact restraint based on it.
Although, I gotta say, boiling it down, you said this:
the case you're referencing, if it existed, would absolutely have "first amendment," "contact," and "restraining."
That's retarded. There's no reason to assume that. Nothing I've said anywhere above gave you reason to assume that, I just said to try "third party contact" trying to help you find it.
You really must be a terrible lawyer if you are a real one. Just your ability to follow chains of reasoning and formulate arguments is shot af
Telling people this kid's a rapist is First Amendment protected, I'm not guilty of harassment.
That's not true unless your contact restriction was unconstitutional. And that isn't true unless you have a case saying such contact restrictions are unconstitutional, because no-contact orders always include contact for the purpose of conveying factual information. They'd be fucking useless if they didn't -- imagine a world in which abusive boyfriends could contact their exes, but only if they restricted themselves to saying factual things like "I never slept with anyone else" or "your new boyfriend isn't as tall as I am."
I mean the main point he was making with the citation was that I haven't committed a crime.
But, again, that's only true if your no-contact order was unconstitutional. Any decision invalidating your no-contact order would have to relate specifically to no-contact orders, or else be so broad that it was of earthshattering importance (like, I would have heard about it in Con Law important).
There is no part of your story that makes sense. There could be a case that I just can't find, but there almost certainly isn't (at the bare minimum, a case with the effect you describe would have shown up in Am. Jur. 2d, which is current through this year and has nothing at all that would have helped you). In the alternative, a highly-respected criminal attorney might make up a non-existent case to get someone off of a charge for violating their no-contact, but almost certainly wouldn't.
The "best criminal attorney" in Ulster County could be mistaken about ACD terminology, but almost certainly isn't. The jurisdiction you're operating in could have simply failed to take into account the blatant unconstitutionality of their no-contact order practices, but probably didn't. The prosecutor could have just completely failed to keep up with relevant Supreme Court rulings, but probably didn't. You could have somehow genuinely walked away from the courtroom thinking that your ACD was a plea deal, but probably didn't.
Even assuming for the sake of argument I ignored all of the batshit crazy things you have said before, even assuming that I was exceptionally credulous here, I wouldn't believe you even a little bit.
You seem like the kind of guy who gets a hard-on for bayesian reasoning. Even if my priors predisposed me to believe you, each of these inconsistencies I've talked about makes your story less and less credible: each of them is more likely to arise if you're making all of this up than if you're telling the truth. Taking all of them together, your story is simply not believable.
You really must be a terrible lawyer if you are a real one.
I'm not a lawyer, and never claimed I was. I'm a lowly student. If I were a lawyer, these Westlaw searches would be costing me money.
Not to feed his delusion, but are you sure you are looking to the right case law? I think hstarkravinglunatic is a New Yorker. Have you looked to state law? NY has a free speech provision of their constitution.
Not to feed his delusion, but are you sure you are looking to the right case law? I think hstarkravinglunatic is a New Yorker. Have you looked to state law? NY has a free speech provision of their constitution.
Lord help me. That's an excellent point. Well, if that's what it is, he's got to admit that the dismissal doesn't follow from a "plain reading of the First Amendment" or whatever the hell he said, so I'm satisfied.
That's not true unless your contact restriction was unconstitutional
How the fuck not?
Sorry buddy, but that's your lack of any basic ability to follow chains of reasoning fucking with you again. Your brain must be flailing around with the almost-awareness of how ridiculous its own argument is that now you're saying some straight up gibberish like that.
And that isn't true unless you have a case saying such contact restrictions are unconstitutional, because no-contact orders always include contact for the purpose of conveying factual information. They'd be fucking useless if they didn't -- imagine a world in which abusive boyfriends could contact their exes, but only if they restricted themselves to saying factual things like "I never slept with anyone else" or "your new boyfriend isn't as tall as I am."
I see how it works. Your brain could skate right over that first sentence. By saying I must be guilty of harassment unless the contact restraint is Unconstitutional, you then let yourself skate into talking about how contact restraints also apply to factual information. The initial fact is technically true, but it ignores how the contact restraint being unconstitutional doesn't actually hinge on whether the Supreme Court has ever ruled on it, and whether the Supreme Court has ever ruled on the First Amendment's protection of speech about people also doesn't actually depend on whether they've ruled on contact restraints made over such speech. That completely ruins your statement, part of your brain tugs away at you like "but dude obviously the SC could rule on the charges without ever ruling on such contact restraints," but you manage to avoid hearing it, and so you successfully use that first paragraph to frame things around something true. Then now that it's framed around something true, you just embellish on how true that obviously true thing is for a whole paragraph, and by the end of the paragraph you've filled your brain with that nice feeling of "everything I'm saying is true" and totally eliminated that part tugging away at you for how fucking retarded it was to begin with to act like the Supreme Court couldn't possibly have ruled on similar charges themselves without ruling on a similar contact restraint. Sorry to explicitly spell this out, making you reflect not only on that one sentence you were trying to avoid realizing the retardation of, but also how far your brain will go with retarded shit to protect its fragile image of itself as intelligent.
But, again, that's only true if your no-contact order was unconstitutional.
But, again, no it's not. You know it's not. Does it hurt, knowing you reiterated this dumb shit and did the same "type a single false sentence to open up a whole true paragraph of possibilities" shit twice in a row? Doesn't it almost feel pointless to even have a brain, if it can just mislead itself like that?
Any decision invalidating your no-contact order would have to relate specifically to no-contact orders, or else be so broad that it was of earthshattering importance (like, I would have heard about it in Con Law important).
You sure? I think the contact restraint would be invalidated by a case that invalidates the charges it was based on. Would that be of such earth-shattering importance? Put on your big boy clothes and play pretend like you have conscious thoughts in your head instead of just emotional word soup.
There is no part of your story that makes sense
Then you are a lawyer who can't make sense of a single part of a normal, everyday town court criminal trial.
There could be a case that I just can't find, but there almost certainly isn't
There almost certainly is though, and if not it still wouldn't change anything that happened. I was there. The fact that it "almost certainly wouldn't" happen just means this is a noteworthy story if it did happen that way. Doesn't magically negate the shit that I witnessed happening in the courtroom with my own eyes and ears.
The "best criminal attorney" in Ulster County could be mistaken about ACD terminology, but almost certainly isn't.
Agreed.
The jurisdiction you're operating in could have simply failed to take into account the blatant unconstitutionality of their no-contact order practices, but probably didn't
Except they obviously did, as evidenced by how they arrested me for telling people about someone's actions, which you as a lawyer should easily be able to determine is Constitutionally protected speech. In fact, you were arguing earlier how pointless contact restraints would be if there were exceptions for factual speech - very true, would totally disprove me if my argument at all hinged on contact restraints having exceptions for factual speech. But I'm guessing you know basic civics and how our country was founded? Imagine how pointless the First Amendment would be if you could just be like "hey, this guy is saying stuff I don't like about me and he won't stop! Arrest him!" Can you follow a chain of reasoning similar to your own??? Except, y'know, actually applicable to the opposing side's argument. Probably not, lil bit too advanced for you.
The prosecutor could have just completely failed to keep up with relevant Supreme Court rulings, but probably didn't.
So he was intentionally, maliciously, extremely illegally pretending the whole time? Listen, I don't like the guy. Prosecutors are scumbags, especially in the United States, especially in New York. I don't want to defend him. But he did not strike me as someone who'd do that.
To clarify what actually happened in his head, since you apparently aren't capable of hypothesizing it (and maybe it'd be really hard to think of without having interacted with him face-to-face at the proceedings), but he basically assumed I was a liar and Levi was telling the truth, rather than vice-versa. He thought he was going after me for spreading lies about the kid in an attempt to ruin his reputation, based on personal issues. He was an idiot, but not some corrupt asshole breaking the Constitution on purpose. From his perspective, he thought he had an angle against me. I think he expected my lawyer to talk to me, get the facts he was missing, and then be scared as shit of going to trial and having those facts come out. So he was surprised when my lawyer came out of our private conversation completely upholding that I committed no crime and that we wouldn't budge on that. Probably made him second-guess his conclusion. Either way, it's not the batshit insane possibility you're using as an argument against what happened, of him just completely flubbing his duties to an unrealistic extent.
You could have somehow genuinely walked away from the courtroom thinking that your ACD was a plea deal, but probably didn't.
All my other ACD's have been plea deals, forgive me for the slip of the tongue dude? You're really reaching trying to use that as an argument.
Taking all of them together, your story is simply not believable.
That's because "taking all of them together" creates your wild-ass version of the story, where the Supreme Court had to make a supersized national spectacle out of a ruling just to uphold the basic premise of the First Amendment and the prosecutor had to be a cartoon character of a corrupt lawyer in order to fuck up like this... rather than the normal set of events that actually happened.
I am done. I simply cannot compete with your boundless stamina and propensity for inventing increasingly outlandish explanations for your idiotic story.
Actually, real talk, I won't be titling myself CEO until these gaps are gone. But I'm still going to play dumb, and you don't actually know what you're talking about if you think I couldn't just call myself CEO as soon as the company is off the ground. Lots of CEOs don't know jack shit about finance, economics, management, etc. even compared to me. They just run their companies into the ground
If you're going to claim someone is "not a lawyer" when they've passed the bar exam, then equivalently I can surely also claim that you are "not a CEO" when you own your own company.
Being a lawyer IS an area of expertise, you are correct. Passing the bar is a symbolic and legal representation that an attorney has requisite legal knowledge to practice law.
If you could name five of the subjects tested on the bar, or hell even the name of the multi-state test without googling, I would be extremely surprised.
How can you speculate about the ease of the test/the ease of cheating on the test if you don't even know what the test is called or what it is examining?
I used it as an IRC nick, liked how it looked next to stuff I said, just aesthetically. Started using it as my name in general because it really seemed aesthetically fitting to my personality. I still think so: Stark. Just looks like how my personality feels to me. Always hated my original last name so decided to get it legally changed to that. Watched Iron Man somewhere along the way, saw so many parallels and reflections between Iron Man and myself, combined with the name, it legit felt like destiny was telling me to run with it. Kinda like how people with delusions of grandeur work, except I think the parallels were laid on a little thicker than the weak links they tend to exaggerate, and I'm gonna turn out to be right about my epic destiny.
I think they all have delusions of grandeur and aren't anywhere near as smart as they say. I bet none of them will ever go anywhere in real life. Their greatest contributions to the world will just be copypastas, the lot of them. They all probably live with their moms and have no idea what the real world is like. They have stupid usernames too. Oh, and they should all be taken completely seriously at all times. None of them ever joke or have a clever double-meaning or anything like that. If they say something dumb, they're just dumb.
I'm good to practice in Australia, the UK, Canada, California and NYC. About the only place my qualifications and professional accreditations don't work is the the Deep South, but who in fuck would want to work there?
I wonder which stage of development Stark Industries will be at when people like you admit I'm what I say I am. Or if you'll still rationalize yourselves as superior somehow, Trump-hater style.
I'm not an easy person to invest in. I shed a lot of traditional wisdom in favor of figuring things out on my own. So stuff pops up like you trying to use the word "equity" in the conversation and then me not knowing exactly what you mean. Like, ok it's ownership of a portion of the company, but you still don't really actually own that portion of the company? Like I'm not even sure whether equity would actually entitle you to that percentage of the company's profits or revenue? I could Google it but I don't care or even want to know. I'd define terms of a deal in more plain English. I'd employ executives who are willing to do the same. I'd expect it to be much better for the company than any expertise in financial lingo would be, because what I do know about the finance world shows me that its people and methods are mostly retarded. Words like "income" and "profit" are just thrown around meaninglessly despite having actual definitions in the dictionary that could be used instead. I'm not playing that game; I will legitimately be a multi-billion-dollar CEO and still play dumb pretending not to know the meanings of common finance terms, continuing to force plain-English negotiations. And you probably read all this and just shut down and have zero doubt that I'm incompetent. Which is why in the long run I will dominate your kind, probably create a trillion-dollar corporation and maybe destroy capitalism.
If you're one of the rare types to read all this and not shut down - probably doubt me heavily, but still wonder a bit rather than being dead certain - then message me. We'll just discuss shit in plain English until you reach a certain conclusion on my competence. I believe if you're open-minded after reading this comment, you will eventually come around to the view that I'm among the best businessmen ever to live, if not simply the best. I'll teach you the meanings of efficiency and synergy, my dude. But it will take a very long time conversing. Like I said, I'm difficult to invest in. If you want the one investment opportunity that can make you hundreds of millions in returns on an investment of a few thousand dollars, you gotta work for it. If my pitch could be made quickly and efficiently, you'd be competing with so many other investors. The complexity and obscurity of my talents is what keeps this opportunity in the bargain bin for you. Are you the one investor smart enough to figure me out and get in at ground zero?
Which is why in the long run I will dominate your kind, probably create a trillion-dollar corporation and maybe destroy capitalism.
I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm looking to invest in this upcoming trillion-dollar company.
I don't doubt a second that you are the best business man to ever set his foot on this planet. I have actually read a lot of stuff you have said through out the years, and the first thing I said to myself was "this kid will go places".
Now, you don't throw money at a 15 year old kid unless you really want to lose it, so I did like any wise investor would do and waited.
You're older now and have have kept a steady course set on success, which is the reason as to why I'm confident to invest money in your ideas.
So if you're interested in outside investors, I have the capital to get you going.
Dude jargon exists for a reason, so that people concisely know what you're talking about. Speaking "plain English" is only going to make your communication needlessly long-winded and imprecise.
You mean needfully long-winded for the sake of precision. Because there's a difference between "jargon" for the sake of precise communication, and just arbitrarily defining amounts of money to refer to as "profit" and "income" regardless of the actual amounts of those things, or dealing in things like "equity" which have pre-defined terms that generally in this day and age are not a good deal for either side.
just arbitrarily defining amounts of money to refer to as "profit" and "income" regardless of the actual amounts of those things, or dealing in things like "equity" which have pre-defined terms that generally in this day and age are not a good deal for either side.
Within a particular accounting basis (i.e. GAAP, statutory accounting) those terms all have precise and consistent definitions.
Yes, precisely designed to simplify some things and conflate others at the convenience of those who happened to set the terms early in the formation of the modern finance world. Consistent with those arbitrarily-set bullshit definitions, and usually also consistent with an utter disregard for the reality of the amounts they're talking about. See "Hollywood accounting" and the common-knowledge trope about movies being calculated out as "unprofitable." Also see how international corporations do their accounting, with laws laid out (at the convenience of the aforementioned pioneers of modern finance) to have them sell their own products to themselves through different national corporate "divisions" and then post "profits" or "losses" that have nothing to do with the actual amount of money being made or lost by the actual group of people and accounts comprising the company, either within a given division or globally. See how rich people are allowed to make the vast majority of their income off of things which are literally just not defined as income. Just like, yeah, all that money that came in to my accounting of wealth this year? Let's just agree that's not income.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can work in financing without realizing how utterly retarded it all is and how much more profitable it would be for a straight-shooting business entity to take control of their business dealings and do them their own way.
If you know more about accounting than me but also have enough of a brain to see where I'm coming from, I'd love to discuss this more. But no matter how much you know, if you're going to sit here and act like income isn't income, I'm not interested in what you have to say. I hope you agree with the obvious fact that this game is bullshit, and our disagreement is in you thinking (wrongly, I'd bet) that it'd be more profitable for me to play said game.
You need to unmarry technical definitions from layman definitions in your head before this can go any further. A scientist shouldn't correct a random person on the street for using the word theory to mean a guess or a hunch even though that's not how he uses it. Accountants know what profit means and they understand it's not what immediately jumps to people's minds when they hear the word profit. And you know what? That's fine. Scientists deal with it, doctors deal with it, lawyers deal with it. Language evolves and words have different meanings in different contexts.
I'm not an accountant, anything I've learned has been incidental to my work as an entry level actuarial analyst. Your complaint is similar to one that many people have about statistics. People who do not understand statistics at a deep level are justifiably suspicious about statistics because "stats lie". The thing is, stats don't lie, they can only be misleading to people who read too much into them or do not interpret them rationally. The same thing happens with accounting.
How exactly are you going to actually make money by using non-standard definitions of financial terms? Will your company refuse to engage in financial reporting?
You need to unmarry technical definitions from layman definitions in your head before this can go any further.
Dude, they're not unmarriable. Technical definitions are supposed to be more in-depth versions of the laymans' definitions. Calling income "not income" isn't a technical term that needs to be unmarried from the layman's, it's just bullshit. And it's not like these words came along from different origins. There are technical terms that come along independently from the layman's terms. Like in medicine there are tons, "sympathetic" neural responses don't have to do with what we call "sympathy," the linguistic calculation of what to call them just happened to make the same word. Referring to "profit" as "losses" did not come along from someone doing linguistics and happening to come up with the word "losses" again independently of the original word. It came from someone wanting to cover up their profits.
Get real, dude.
How exactly are you going to actually make money by using non-standard definitions of financial terms?
By investors and customers paying us, I'd presume.
Will your company refuse to engage in financial reporting?
I should actually clarify a bit. I'm not completely opposed to playing the game. Early on, for example, I will probably use every loophole possible to avoid paying taxes. Not for the extra money, but because the current New York state and American federal governments have no legitimacy. I'm opposed, but not strictly, to the idea of letting an illegitimate government rob us. More strictly, I'm opposed to the idea of funding either of these governments' most serious crimes. In the early stages, I might have no choice but to let my company engage in a bit of the bullshit.
However, in the longer run, I do plan to completely break free from the games. When the company is big enough to function as its own sovereign entity, the government will have to either cooperate or see us do so.
Will we refuse to engage in financial reporting? I don't think so. I have an affinity for transparency. Stark Industries probably have publicly accessible, real-time financial reporting done digitally on every detail of the company's finances, as well as in-depth reviews and audits and such by accountants at regular intervals. I'm not going to completely rule out the idea of becoming a shadow company and refusing to report anything, I'm just saying right now that's the opposite of my plans. The only likely way I can see my company being anything but transparent, is if I someday decide to have an IPO for Stark Industries (which would have the aforementioned public digital finance tracking) while carving out the most sentimental or otherwise needed subsidiaries of the company to buy for myself, privately doing business as the Stark Enterprises or Stark Innovations trademark.
But, this is all probably aside from the point of your questions. Again, to the first one, we'll make our money from customers paying us, duh. To the second one, refusing to engage in financial reporting is nothing dude, we'll declare sovereignty if we have to.
I have to ask though, why would we refuse to engage in financial reporting? How do you not understand the simple possibility of doing said reporting without lying? Like, actually defining terms in ways that make sense? You really can't comprehend that concept?
I have to ask though, why would we refuse to engage in financial reporting? How do you not understand the simple possibility of doing said reporting without lying? Like, actually defining terms in ways that make sense? You really can't comprehend that concept?
Industries in the United States are regulated. For instance, insurance companies have to file quarterly and annual financial statements with the NAIC. These financial statements must follow what is known as statutory accounting, which is a set of accounting standards and definitions that are standardized across the board (with minor variations between states) for insurance companies. You don't just get to report what you want, you have to supply an itemized list of figures that follow the prescribed definitions.
I answered the question. You don't get to define terms "in ways that make sense" and still be compliant with the law. Accounting practices are standardized and you don't get to just report your own metrics. You report profits as they are defined (by GAAP most likely in your case) or you get your filing rejected or convicted of fraud.
You don't get to define terms "in ways that make sense" and still be compliant with the law.
Actually, the First Amendment ensures I do. I can put out any report I want if the information contained is in good faith and not bound by any NDA's. You're crazy if you think I'm going to sign NDA's on my company's finances, or be found not to be in good faith publishing in-depth data in accurate English terms.
Accounting practices are standardized and you don't get to just report your own metrics.
You do though. First Amendment. Why do you repeat yourself?
You report profits as they are defined (by GAAP most likely in your case) or you get your filing rejected and/or convicted of fraud.
They could not convict me of fraud. For them to do that, I'd have to pretend I'm reporting by their definitions while actually using my own. If I'm openly trashing their definitions, they might be able to convict me of something, but certainly not fraud.
Either way, I'm sure my accountants would have time to put out accurate public reports separate from the government-hoops reports, and if anyone tried to stop me I'd keep pleading the First Amendment until I had a ruling in my favor (which I surely would).
Either way, I'm sure my accountants would have time to put out accurate public reports separate from the government-hoops reports
Yeah that's totally fine and what most large corporations already do. For instance SEC reports use GAAP accounting while the IRS requires its own separate form of accounting that's more strict about book values. Most companies have their own proprietary set of books as well that they use for internal "best estimate" projections. I'm just saying that if you don't follow the rules you're going to be shut down by a regulator.
If I don't follow the rules, it will be because I figured out how to get away with it. That's what makes your whole point, kinda pointless. I've already thought plenty about this stuff.
You're aware the SEC doesn't apply to private companies, right? I'm not sure whether I'll ever take the company public. I like the idea of creating the first trillion-dollar private company. There is certainly no chance of going public early. If we go public, the public company will be Stark Industries, the multi-billion-dollar multinational diversified conglomerate. There will be all sorts of options with the SEC. We could just jump through their hoops. We as a company could get public support, tell them to go fuck themselves, and go through the political process of protesting their bullshit. Regardless, there are certain subsidiaries I'll buy for myself once we have an IPO, keeping them private. At that point, that new private split-off company would be more "mine" than the publicly-traded Stark Industries.
As for the IRS, again, there are options. We'll have to deal with the IRS even at the first stage of development, where it is not so feasible to get public support and go through with political protest. I'll have to consult lawyers on what to do at that point. I don't think it's as far-fetched as you think, to imagine they'd just audit us and make sure we're paying the right amount, maybe fine us or generally hate us for flubbing all the paperwork but not outright shut us down.
Understand that my range of options at the start of the company is anywhere from "just jump through the IRS' hoops and do the paperwork the way they expect" to "file as 501(c)(3), have good lawyers, and accept the restrictions imposed." What you suggest, being shut down by a regulator, is not on that list of options.
One more thing. When this whole conversation started, I said a straight-shooting business entity would be more profitable if they took control of their business dealings and didn't play games. While I personally am a rebel and willing to have my company protest the government, this isn't what I meant. I was referring to stuff like refusing to use "finance jargon" in negotiations with investors - at least when said jargon isn't conducive to realism. Or stuff like closely monitoring your company's accounting and keeping it as legit as possible, instead of just chalking it up to something "accountants" handle and letting them do whatever bullshit their college taught them to do.
There's no purpose besides that for needing to steal a car to buy drugs
So literally rephrased "IS ONE OF THOSE 'PURPOSES' STEALING CARS??"
So boring dude. Have you ever even smoked weed? It doesn't make people suicidal from withdrawal. I can't tell if you're actually this retarded or indeed just trolling me. I mean I know you're just trolling but it's hard to tell which parts are how retarded you really are vs which parts are embellished
That's the point retard, you stole a car because you were so pathetic you couldn't handle being sober. I don't know how you've avoided this point through the last dozen points but you've successfully ignored it each time, with occasional halfhearted deflections like misunderstand what I said, which you did above. Just a heads up for misunderstanding this one, it's pretty clear that you understand that you had a serious drug problem if you were stealing cars to feed it. But please, continue to deny it.
So the hilarious fact that you're trying to tell someone who's learning abnormal psychology about addiction by claiming wikipedia is your source is great, but not the point.
The point is that you were willing to break the law because you couldn't handle not having the drugs. That's called being addicted.
Wikipedia isn't my source, but it's the source you need if you think someone who can't live with being sober is addicted... to weed. Maybe you're confusing it with alcohol or something. If you're in college studying addiction and you understand it this poorly, I think you're going to fail that course.
But it's not even remotely like being an alcoholic, nor do I have it. I'm physically addicted to weed, not "psychologically." 99% of the time people talking about being "psychologically" addicted to weed are just diverting from their mild physical addiction. But the physical addiction from weed is way too mild to make anyone suicidal, as is any normal psychological addiction to anything. You are definitely gonna fail this course
You just said you weren't addicted. My god are you a liar. Way to start moving the goalposts, nitpicking, and gas lighting. You really fit that list perfectly.
99% of the time people talking about being "psychologically" addicted to weed are just diverting from their mild physical addiction
And this from the man who dropped out of community college. It must be true!
But the physical addiction from weed is way too mild to make anyone suicidal, as is any normal psychological addiction to anything. You are definitely gonna fail this course
How can you be so stupid yet so smug? It's seriously incredible.
I'm not addicted to a significant extent. Simpler to just say "not addicted," especially in a discussion with someone as retarded as you. Where did I even say that though? I don't remember it
I hold a Master's of Accounting and am a practicing auditor at a Big 4 accounting firm. You are an absolute idiot and I genuinely hope you one day try to open a business so I can witness your reaction on reddit when every accountant in the tri-state area laughs you off the phone.
a fat neckbeard NEET with no talents looking down on someone whose relatively successful in everything you've failed at and has the credentials to prove it. never would've guessed!
Lmao. I could fail at more stuff than you've ever succeeded at, fail at more stuff than you've ever failed at, and still succeed at more stuff than you've succeeded & failed at combined. You haven't done shit with your life and haven't even tried. You're a fucking auditor with 30 bosses between you and the owner of your work. You're barely even a person anymore.
Whoever said every single on of your posts is a copypasta was incredibly on point. You said you'd like to discuss your ideas with someone who knows more about accounting than you. I guarantee I know more about accounting, finance, the legal environment, and probably every single aspect of the business world considering I have multiple degrees in it. Meanwhile, all you do is excel at generating upvotes on r/drama since you still haven't quite managed to realize how angry, nonsensical, and how much of an overall joke you are. I'm really hoping you respond to this message with something special.
Nigga I could be prouder of myself for cooking a dank bowl of pasta and it would still probably be more than all you've contributed to the world in your life to be proud of
You're a leech on society moreso than I could ever be. I'd actually get off my ass and find a job if the alternative were to be as pathetic of a waste as you
Why aren't you ashamed of your unabashed hypocrisy and waste of life and potential? You are the worst living human being I've ever seen and I don't understand how you can be so blind to this.
You mean Donald Trump's genius. The dude has perfected playing dumb, he has literally millions of retards like you falling for it. I can totally picture him pretending not to know finance terms so that people have to actually state things accurately.
I meant majority of America. Electoral college voters are bound to their constituents, their votes say little about their own opinions of the candidate.
Nice moving the goal posts now. "Nobody agrees with you!" "Lots of people agree with you." "Well, lots of people are retarded!"
Occam's razor, dude has managed to piss off almost every ally in the first 100 days, economy is slowing down, the wall isn't getting built, ACA is still standing despite GOP owning all three branches. Face it he isn't very intelligent.
YES. I'd give him 60% gross revenue in perpetuity for $1000 up-front, I don't give a fuck. I love Notch and it's a life dream of mine to get to know him and help him out with whatever's made him so unhappy from what I've read about. If he wanted to invest in my company that'd be perfect, cause I'd hook him up with the most stupidly good deal ever and he'd have an example of someone giving him billions of dollars out of sheer appreciation for Minecraft as an artwork rather than Microsoft giving him billions due to profit incentives. Like damn that'd have to feel good for him. I think he doesn't really understand how dope Minecraft is. For real I've thought a lot about Notch (because what he went through contained possible lessons for what I'll go through as in business) and I bet this would be perfect as fuck
You're the type of person who I'd convince 30 for a g was a good deal. You always get charged more because nobody can bear being with your annoying ass.
My haters would think that, since they're idiots. I usually get good deals, I'm definitely not paying above market for a gram. Most of my dealers are friends with me
If they invite me over to smoke me up for free when they're bored, that's the opposite of your retarded concept that I'd pay $30/g. Putting quotation marks on stuff doesn't make your beliefs any less retarded
The fact that you think even one of your dealers is your friend shows so much. Try hanging out with one without weed. I bet you're addicted and let it dominate your life. When's the last time you smoked? Right fucking now?
You realize one tenth would be Stark Industries as a hundred-billion-dollar megacorp? Just saying, I think I catch your drift and you probably meant like a thousandth or something
i meant 1/10th of the first sentence, not trillions of dollars. like, any sort of job would honestly even impress me. i'd be shocked if you could hold down a single job over median salary for a few years, honestly
But there isn't 1/10th of the first sentence. It'll go from Stark Enterprises through Stark Innovations and then probably straight to Stark Industries. Gonna be running out of Iron Man references if I keep adding developmental steps. Even the Stark Ventures stage already lacks an original in the comics, but it'll only be a subsidiary. It only counts as its own developmental stage because it'll probably be contributing the majority of the company's growth during that period, despite being a subsidiary. I'm not going further than that. I'm not having a whole period of development where the name of the company itself isn't even an Iron Man reference. No way, man.
If your name was Stark, and you were planning on being a multi-billion dollar tech CEO, and then you found out about Iron Man, you'd want to name your company Stark Industries too. No other name could possibly be as good.
If you're a hot girl and you can offer something more interesting than sucking toes... then I'm still not paying for a bus ticket just to fuck some stranger. You can come to me, but you gotta wait until next year when my girl turns 18 and moves in with me, because I'm letting her keep me to herself until then
Maybe you should start small and get an entry level job and keep it for a while before you start taking over the world with your own company. Just a thought.
I know the area you're from. I actually really love the Hudson Valley, so I'm not gonna call you a hick. But, if you've never left and experienced much of anything outside of your little world, you really have no idea how little you actually know.
I know all of Ulster County really well, not just any one part of it. I kinda know NYC a bit. Somewhere between tourist and resident level knowledge. I've spent a fair amount of time in Dutchess County and Greene County too. Been on a few road trips to various parts of the east coast like D.C. and Boston, and spent a few weeks exploring Miami/Miami beach once. Haven't been out of my time zone before though, always been somewhere on the east coast. But, unlike you and most people, I have a brilliant intuition and spend a lot of time absorbing information. Looking at data and listening to humans from all walks of life all over the world, in both personal accounts and academic works, enables people like me to accurately say it's people like you who have no idea how little you actually know.
The fact that you think a trip to Florida and being familiar with a few upstate counties is noteworthy just sorta proves my point. Whatever intuition you think you may possess clearly doesn't extend inward, or you'd understand that chatting with Austrian bronies won't cure you of your small pond syndrome.
While I may not personally believe that you're one of the smartest people in the world, I still enjoyed learning about the whole air conditioning story and reading your comments. Keep doing you.
I dunno if I am. I didn't read the whole thread, just the main post and the top comment. The top comment seemed to just assume the principal was doing it to get the kid out of trouble? In which case why tf would the kid have made the post? It lost my interest around there
Why are you telling us? Delete all these self-incriminating facts and get a real fucking lawyer before you end up in federal prison.
or
If you think you can sue over this, you are retarded (and not in a manner that is actionable under the Americas with Disabilities Act).
or
Sure you could sue your boss, but good luck finding a lawyer who wants to take your $8/hour busboy employment discrimination case through 4 years of litigation on contingency.
Of course, none of those answers were very much fun, so the amateurs got into the game and it became /r/JudgeAStranger.
Darq. I really want you to listen to me. I'm going to joke throughout this, but I really want you to hear me and this message.
I was at a bar, in a small college town in Tennessee. Someone was talking about this delusional guy on Reddit, who thought he was the smartest person on Earth. I immediately said "It's either Darqwolf, or HStark"
Right on the fucking nose. You are famous for all the wrong things in dive bars in Tennessee. Let that sink in.
Your IQ means you have an ability to learn complex stuff in less time than most people. You aren't blessed with all knowledge.
You are actually a walking fucking disaster. I'm saying this with love.
Oh sure, I laughed along with the rest as you Mr. Magooed your life through one disaster to the next.
Now this is getting sad.
A high IQ doesn't mean you're destined for greatness. A lot of people with high IQ's find something they're really good at and plug away until they become masters at their craft.
I think you could find a lot of peace by finding something you like, one specific thing, and just learn it. Humble yourself before people who have a lot to teach you. Learn from them. And do whatever it is better. Not revolutionary. Not godlike. Just stand on the shoulders of giants, and help the next guy up the ladder.
Dude, I mildly want you to listen to me. I'm not going to joke throughout this comment, but I really truly do want you to hear me and this message.
People as smart as me don't need to be told a high IQ doesn't destine us for greatness. You'd have to be retarded to think it does. Part of intelligence is basic reasoning ability, and it doesn't take much of that to realize that since diseases and mental health and luck in general exist, no particular trait guarantees success, and intelligence doesn't even come close. Even an average-intelligence person can easily figure this out.
The thing is, an average-intelligence person would also know how easy this is to figure out. They wouldn't think an intelligent person needs it explained to them. As soon as you say it, I'd normally stop reading your comment, because you have to be so stupid to think it could possibly need to be said, I can safely assume there's not going to be a surprisingly intelligent argument contained later in the text. In this case, you opened by pleading for me to read the whole thing, so I did.
And it continued to be just as pointless. How would I find "peace" from continuing to learn stuff? I'm legitimately trying to start a multi-billion-dollar company, change the nature of the economy and world, end war, slavery, and hunger, all in time for my Presidential election in 2036. And that's just the easy stuff, the warm-up exercise before the real sport, seriously, because until then I'm facing all these things on my own terms, having had time to think about them and attacking them after determining whether and how it could be done. As President I'll be having to solve new problems, probably ones I can barely imagine right now, probably involving technologies I barely understand, plus problems I'm already aware of and will simply have to handle as I go because they can't be planned for (like how do I fix the deep state? How do I ensure no information is being hid from the White House? That single example will be a bigger challenge than anything I have to face before I'm President). All of this means there's little to no peace in knowledge or skills for me. I have to learn constantly, and I do, whether it's from independent study or "humbling myself" before a master. This learning won't bring me peace, the goal of most of it is to prepare me for the war.
How would I find "peace" from continuing to learn stuff? I'm legitimately trying to start a multi-billion-dollar company
Because lots of people fail, and you'll fail like you've failed in everything else because you don't fucking take the time or humility to learn stuff, instead assuming you're smarter than the people who did the work.
change the nature of the economy and world, end war, slavery, and hunger, all in time for my Presidential election in 2036
This is exactly what he's talking about, you don't know about any of this stuff to do anything to affect it, you just assume you do.
having had time to think about them and attacking them after determining whether and how it could be done
So have people much smarter and who have done much more work than you. Assuming you can think through the problems won't help if you won't actually put in the work (inb4 "I'm really serious and I've already started*")
*I've googled the problem.
whether it's from independent study or "humbling myself" before a master. This learning won't bring me peace, the goal of most of it is to prepare me for the war.
"That's quite possibly the worst lie you've ever told and that's saying something from Mr. Calls-Chad-A-Serial-Rapist"
So "HAHA NO P.S. THAT COURT CASE" lmao
You're just denying everything I say and cycling through the same set of shit dude. You've got like, almost none of my attention left. Make this conversation more interesting if you're so desperate to talk to me
I really doubt that, you are pathetically needy in terms of attention. You wouldn't have argued functionally the entirety of the people in this thread if you weren't. So let's just keep having fun.
Make this conversation more interesting if you're so desperate to talk to me
You're just so cute when you pretend you have standards.
I seriously bet that you'll keep this going for as long as I bother to give you my attention, both because you can't stand being only acknowledged by your mother and because you seemingly have a pathological need to have the last word (to justify to yourself that you won the argument)
I'd probably keep this going for as long as you continued it, but I'm acknowledged by lot of people and could go get attention from others on the internet any time, so it's not for attention, and I don't have a pathological need to have the last word. I just tend to reply to things. I wonder if you can comprehend it being that simple and your reply below this is just pretending to think it's some crazy attention-starved shit, or if you really are too deep into this delusion to imagine the idea of someone who just doesn't like ignoring stuff.
but I'm acknowledged by lot of people and could go get attention from others on the internet any time
That's what I just said and why you're still here.
so it's not for attention
You just said you could let it go because you have others to go for attention and acknowledgement.
I don't have a pathological need to have the last word
Then stop replying.
I wonder if you can comprehend it being that simple and your reply below this is just pretending to think it's some crazy attention-starved shit, or if you really are too deep into this delusion to imagine the idea of someone who just doesn't like ignoring stuff.
You can't be this stupid, you just can't be. It's like looking in a mirror and saying the figure in it needs to work out, but they won't admit it because they're jealous of you hot body.
You just said you could let it go because you have others to go for attention and acknowledgement.
No I didn't? My comment isn't even edited, you're just making shit up now. I probably can't let it go, like I said, it's hard for me to ignore things especially if they're addressing me.
I'd probably keep this going for as long as you continued it, but I'm acknowledged by lot of people and could go get attention from others on the internet any time
I wonder if those two halves of the sentence were connected.
Do you not understand how they were connected..? Like.. you really can't follow this simple conversation? You asserted I wouldn't drop it because I need attention. I was pointing out how obviously, a need for attention wouldn't stop me from dropping it, since I can get attention any time. How is that too complicated for you to grasp...
I'd probably keep this going for as long as you continued it, but I'm acknowledged by lot of people and could go get attention from others on the internet any time
This caught my attention while falling down the rabbit hole of some user's comment string. There's a lot of New-Age drivel in it, and it's obviously meant for the RBN crowd to slurp up...
But boy-howdy if this kid doesn't hit points 2 through 9 right on the button.
/u/Edwardthecomputerguy, I'm on your side.
You peacefully left class for the transgression of wearing paperclips on your ears, and followed instructions from then on. The principal viciously and sneakily suspended you, simply because he felt you were challenging his masculinity.
We have some excellent lawyers in this sub, and we could also possibly setup a GoFundMe. Tell us your side of the story, and fuck the pretend lawyers at /r/legaladvice.
It's just another example of every day ageism too. The First Amendment was meant to cover freedom of expression, and that includes nose piercings. The school is actually violating your Miranda rights to begin with by forcing you to take them off, and not only that, but it's pretty homophobic for them to do so considering the rich quality of piercings in the queer community.
My sister just finished an internship at a school where, k-12, you can be paddled, unless your parents object. The list of parents who object is only about 12 names long. I tend fairly liberal, but I'm a high school teacher myself. Corporal punishment works. The only major problems are the kids whose parents think they're incapable of ever doing anything wrong.
As usual, /r/legaladvice filled with retards, but luckily there was one soul who was clearly top of the class.
Wow what a wonderful, cogent response /u/DiaboliAdvocatus. I expect nothing less from someone with such a brave username. So I figured; hey, what other nuggets of golden wisdom does this brave gentleman have to share?
Yeah my eye couldn't stop twitching at all the little things they had changed to "Westernize" the story. This will be another Aeon Flux.
Ah okay....hmmm. Well maybe being a weeb degenerate isn't a fatal fla-
Why can't wearing a wifebeater and shorts be professional?
Because "looking professional" is about conforming to a 1950s stereotype of business attire.
Lmao, gas yourself retard.
You think you are smart, but it is time you started to act like it
'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of some phony educational administrator 's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my own intelligence'- Edwardthecomputerguy, Professional Quote Maker
Makes sense. I remember that back when I was 15 and thought my girlfriend wanted to get away from her parents and be with me, I went to /r/legaladvice to discuss the idea of emancipating her through marriage, and while I disagreed with/hated them for shooting it down, I could still see where they were coming from and why from a professional stranger's standpoint I didn't look as smart as I am. It frustrated me, but at least it was normal. My more recent venture into there felt more like a sheer descent into la-la land with how people responded. No semblance of normalcy or understandable professional perspective
378 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-04-27
Providing a Community Safe from TITrCJ's Sexual Advances Since October 2015.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a LaoED 2017-04-27
This was great.
n/a Deutschbag_ 2017-04-27
I remember when I was as insufferable as /Edwardthecomputerguy. I'm sure he'll grow out of it.
n/a Lesmothian 2017-04-27
/u/HStark / /u/DarqWolff is proof that this isn't guaranteed.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
/u/HStark, could you give this kid some
advicewarnings of things to come?n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I dunno but I like how when I was dealing with shit nobody recognized that /r/legaladvice is full of retards but now that it's not me y'all can admit
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
It's not the absolute level of retardation, but comparative. You threw the scales way off.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Except last time it happened I was right about everything and /r/legaladvice was all wrong except one guy who they downvoted the shit out of, accused of not being a real lawyer, and I think removed their comment.
It's my haters who are retarded. I'm as much of a genius as I say I am. Just stating facts, not expecting it to get through to anyone who doesn't already know
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Way off
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
didn't u get arrested tho
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I had already been arrested and released (which took like 45 mins). Went to discuss how it was a bullshit arrest and what I should do strategically on /r/legaladvice.
1 guy backed me up and told me not to worry about strategy because I already knew what I needed to know. This would have been reassuring, if not for how the other 99 dudes downvoted the shit out of him, accused him of not being a real lawyer, and I think the mods removed his comment.
These other 99 dudes then spent hours trying to convince me the First Amendment has been revoked and I'm probably a rapist in denial or something.
This one dude went back and forth with me for hours and hours, me being truly scared on the off chance he was right and basically begging him to actually prove his point by linking to a case with relevant precedent, him just basically being like "nah dude you'd just argue that precedent doesn't apply to your case," leaving me frantically trying to find any examples of what the fuck he was talking about, but unable to find anything because there were none.
Anyway, after all this, I changed my mind on representing myself, let a family friend who's a lawyer represent me, and he went up and made the exact same argument I would have made except he knew the Supreme Court case to cite. Took like 10 seconds.
Still definitely qualifies as one of the most ridiculous reddit experiences of my life. I literally went in asking if anyone could point me in the direction of the previous cases I'd need to cite or anything else I'd need representing myself. I mean, I wasn't even vague, I knew exactly what I needed, just knowledge of which previous case to cite because this seemed like something that certainly would have been settled in a federal court before. And not one person on the subreddit could give me that.
Shit was pretty insane
n/a Lesmothian 2017-04-27
We're talking about the thread where you watched too much Law & Order and wanted to intentionally violate your no-contact order so you could get arrested and go to court and have a dramatic moment on the stand where you accuse someone of being a rapist and then they break down and confess and you're hailed as a hero and pardoned and made the hero of the city and that girl finally realizes what a great guy you've always been, right?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
No, but for some reason you linked to the correct thread while describing your concept. You should write a movie about that. I wouldn't watch it, but someone with lower standards of writing quality than me surely would.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
If assholes show up everywhere you go.......
Except you still haven't. Unless the air conditioner is the psychopath you're referring to.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
So I'm smashing air conditioners right now? I'm typing this with special keyboard air conditioners that you smash to get the letter you want? Like seriously, the fuck? You think because I smashed some air conditioners, my life must consist solely of nothing but smashing air conditioners? You need rehab
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I'm saying you've done nothing save smashing said air conditioner, so the legal people were right about what you'd accomplish.
Seek help.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I don't get the joke. Why is that funny to you?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You said you'd hurt yourself if it meant hurting him significantly more. From what I'm hearing, you've hurt yourself by paying for an attorney and being charged, and he's totally fine with his order of protection.
So yeah, they were right. That's what's funny to me.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Bruh, he was suicidal over this shit. Probably still is when it bubbles up. Definitely hurt him more. Regardless, my priorities have changed with emotions wearing off, now I'm just glad I was able to help protect others from him.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I doubt that and you weren't, but please continue living in your own world. I'll just watch.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'll keep living in the real world. If you wanna just watch, go ahead, but stop spamming me with your version of reality
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I thought you were living with your parents/step parents. What part of that is the real world?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
The part where I live with my mom, so even on this basic detail you got it wrong?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Okay, parent(s) then. Still not quite the real world, wouldn't you agree?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
No
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
My god, what a shock. A man who lives with his mother thinks that's the real world.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Sorry for knowing English
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Nice deflection. Tell your mom to bring you more tendies before you get cranky.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
How is it deflection? Your figure of speech was dumb, you're the one deflecting from that
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I accused you of not knowing what the real world is like because you're still living with mommy. You then attempted to correct my grammar because I said parents instead of parent(s).
Ergo, deflection.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
That's dumb. If you were too stupid to understand the world around you when you lived with your mom, I feel sorry for you. Mine doesn't really influence my perspective
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Everyone thinks that, until they move out and realize how retarded they were.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Except people who aren't retarded
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Yes, ergo you don't know what the real world is yet
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
Shut up you rapist
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
Honest question, have you shaved your neckbeard yet? If not, what are you plans regarding suicide in the near future?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I have not shaved my beard and don't plan to. Suicide is up to my girl, I'm pretty sure she's not gonna let me
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
Second question then; How does it feel to know that you're the load your mother should have swallowed?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Feels pretty badass, because you're saying it out of fear of what I'll do to people like you in my epic life fixing the world
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
So far your epic life has consisted of getting high, being so unable to cope with being not-high that you stole a car, and breaking the air-conditioner of the man who let you stay at his house rent free when you would otherwise have been in jail. You have been more a drain on society at this point than everyone else in your high school class.
Congrats on your epic life.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I've probably contributed way more to the world than most of my high school class just by the number of fine ladies I've saved from suicide
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You mean the ones you threatened so badly she got an order of protection on you? Great job!
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Why would I mean that? I feel like you just intentionally avoid saying anything correct or sensible
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I'm saying you've never helped anyone not commit suicide, but in fact done the opposite, driven people deeper into psychological problems by threatening them and harassing them to the point of legal action being taken.
Now you know how we all feel
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
But she's still alive. I may have driven her deeper into psychological problems than she was at her peak of happiness while we were together, but she still upholds that she would have killed herself if I hadn't gotten her through that point in her depression. Same with countless other cuties, a lot of whom I didn't drive deeper into anything. Plus, you say "threatening and harassing" as if I was ever unkind or violent or angry or anything like that towards this girl, which you know I wasn't. You might pretend not to know, because you have this rule against stating anything true or reasonable, but I'm pretty sure you've read enough of my comments to instinctively grasp that I'm not the type of person to do that, and you're trying to use that to hurt my feelings by insinuating I would I guess? I'll tell you what, my girl is gonna be on a camping trip with her family with no internet or technology soon. I'll probably be pretty stressed that whole time, try hurting my feelings then if you want.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Now tell me the one about your girlfriend in Canada.
You had an order of protection levied against you, twice. If you weren't unkind and angry, they probably wouldn't have done that.
So close! Almost to self-awareness!
Are you joking? The impression your comments give is a smug, narcissistic, idiot who can't understand why the bad things he does have consequences for a genius like him.
I'm trying to show you how you come off, IE a liar and narcissist who can't admit when he's done something wrong.
Are you going to assault her if I do? You're really close to that line with the other assault and the harassment.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
They didn't. She tried to get an order of protection but it never happened, probably because I never did that. The times I've had contact restraints I was indeed "unkind or angry" but those weren't romantic interests. Come on dude, be realistic here, why tf would I be that awful to someone I love so much?
Decent people get a very different impression.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You admitted it in the legal advice thread. More liar tendencies, my god what a shock.
Well yes, we're on the internet so we're not as horrified by your moral repugnance as decent people would be.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Admitted what in which legal advice thread?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
The one where you were (correctly) told that you shouldn't get involved in Chad's business, and you admitted you were doing it on behalf of a girl who had an order of protection against you.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
What...? Like... how was I supposed to know that was what you were referring to? How does that connect to calling me a liar? And what makes you think Levi is a chad or I was doing it on behalf of that girl? I'm so confused
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You said you were doing it on her behalf, even though she didn't ask.
That's cute that you think lying more will help, though.
Because you only had two. How fucking retarded are you that you couldn't tell? Oh right, /u/hstark
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Only had to two what..? And how would I be doing it on her behalf if she didn't ask? Do you not understand what doing something on someone's behalf is?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You only had 2 legaladvice posts you retard, unless you've been arrested more times and used an alt. You said she didn't ask you to do it, but you were doing it on her behalf. It's in the fucking description, how are you this dumb?
Not suprising.
Please stop lying, it's hurting everyone around you and you won't stop until you've made them cut you out of their lives
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Went to the post, ctrl+f "behalf," nothing. The fuck are you talking about? And again, how does any of this connect to the above where you said I already admitted "it" and called me a liar?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Wow, no result for the exact word behalf. God you're so smart, I can't imagine what it would be like to be you. Get back to me when you've actually read it.
I'm still kind of suprised you can read.
n/a Anonylesss 2017-04-27
Hey man I just wanna say this from the bottom of my heart. If you wanna fix the world that's great. That's what I've wanted to do since I was a kid. I've had 10 surgeries since 15 some of which I was bed bound or wheelchair bound for months. I still managed to grow a animal shelter and rescue. There was no small loan of a million dollars or even donations in general the first few years. I built what I needed with discarded materials and looked on Craigslist daily for stuff being thrown away I could make use of. Now I got around 400 of a single type of turtle alone last year. You keep saying you'll fix the world but you aren't trying to do anything it seems. Please seek help and maybe then you will fix the world dude.
n/a IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-04-27
Best... summary... ever
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Holy shit! That's the one where he said he'd bet a hundred thousand dollars that Bernie Sanders would be our next president
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Holy shit! That's the one where he said he'd bet a hundred thousand dollars that Bernie Sanders would be our next president
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
I'm a practicing lawyer. Your narrative seems.. unlikely.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You're a shit lawyer then if an incredibly obvious and basic thing seems "unlikely"
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
My area of expertise?
I'm a pretty good lawyer. Not, like, Birdman good. But yknow. I'm pretty good.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'm sorry, but what part of the "narrative" sounds unlikely?
As far as I can figure, you're either:
In any case, you are not only far from a "pretty good lawyer," you aren't even really a lawyer. You might be someone with a law degree, you might even have cheated your way through the bar, but you can't call yourself a lawyer.
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
LOL. Legal, judicial, AND systemic knowledge? Oh my!! I must have missed a couple classes in lawl school.
I only know about your case what you've put in this thread. So... mostly just a story about how you heroically defied the morons on the internet and then how you were exonerated by a lawyer (in 10 mins!) you didn't even need. LOL. And of course you didn't need the lawyer, you just need an itty bitty citation to a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the Court interpreted and applied the First Amendment just as you knew it should be interpreted and applied.
Only you couldn't find that citation yourself despite your enoooormous brain and apparent internet access because, I guess, Google Scholar got hacked by the Chinese just to impede the ability of America's greatest genius from escaping an overreaching judicial system which depends on nooooobody fucking knowing a case in our nation's highest court that was so fucking on point that all the baddies had to give up and let you free when it was uttered in open court. Was the case called Expelliamus v. The Authoritative but Overreaching Allocation of Values?
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahshshshshahahahaha LOL@u
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I said 10 seconds, but I was exaggerating. It was more like a few hundred seconds. Definitely way less than 10 minutes, probably less than 5. I'd say 3 or 4.
Of course, anyone who has read the First Amendment and done 5 minutes of research on its precedents would also have known.
OK so you're being very colorful with your speech to hide how it has no content at all, but your point here seems to be that it would have been easy to find the citation I needed with Google Scholar, and that any intelligent person in my position would use Google Scholar?
First, I had no idea Google Scholar had court transcripts, I thought it was scientific papers and such. You seem to have intelligence confused with magically knowing everything.
Second, I just went to Google Scholar. Typed "supreme court case first amendment slander," lots of results to sift through. If any of those results contain what I was looking for, it would still take longer to sift through them than to just ask a lawyer (at least under my presumption that a lawyer would have at some point learned the very basics of how the First Amendment works). Do you have an alternative search query to try? Can you find the relevant case there?
Also, just to be funny, I'm gonna translate your whole comment to just the literal statements you were making, no colorful wording:
But they do. Legal knowledge is knowledge of laws, like the First Amendment. Judicial knowledge I intended to mean things like precedent on how the First Amendment has been applied. Systemic knowledge would be like the basic fact that police sometimes make false arrests and prosecutors virtually always give false charges, if nothing else than just out of hopes that the final verdict will settle on the real charges after negotiation in court. You'd have to know that to be a lawyer. You cannot call yourself a lawyer if you lack awareness of such a basic fact of the system, or of incredibly basic laws and judicial history.
Do you realize how retarded all of this sounds without the embellishment? Yeah dude, a lawyer got a favorable plea deal without taking a long time. Fucking unfathomable right? And someone actually READ the First Amendment? But it's a whole paragraph long! And then they fucking GOOGLED how it's been APPLIED in the past??? MAAAADDD WORLDDD
Except there's no reason it would be easy to find, Google Scholar couldn't find it easily, and I guess actually I wouldn't put it past this lawyer to just lie about a case and assume nobody's gonna question him. I also wouldn't put it past the prosecutor to be like "the fuck? I've never heard of that case. Whatever, let's just get this over with." So you might have had one tiny little sprinkle of truth in your comment, I can't say for sure since I don't remember the name he cited.
Anyway, you're extremely dumb and I really, really highly doubt you actually have anything resembling legal credentials.
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
Legal knowledge is knowledge of the first amendment. Judicial knowledge is "things like precedent on how the first amendment has been applied." Bahhahaha. This is gold. You should be a law professor. And a professor of jurisprudence.
And an expert w an honorary doctorate in expertise! Like how prosecutors always bring "false charges" in order to settle on the "real charges" after negotiation "in court." LOLOLOL.
Oh man. Oh man. Am I getting trolled? Is this real? Are you real? This is the best thing that's ever happened to me on Reddit.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Yeah, you're definitely not a lawyer if you think that's far-fetched. At least not one who's ever worked anywhere near the United States' criminal justice system.
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
It's funny because it's nonsense. I do know what you mean, of course. It's just funny that you can't say it without dragging nonsense concepts and simple factual errors into your sentence like a dog tracking mud in the house.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
But there are no factual errors. That's what happens, they give trumped-up and usually explicitly false charges, to provide a negotiatory buffer and hopefully end up with proper charges sticking. If you really don't understand this, you're just making it incredibly obvious that you're some dude pretending to be a lawyer, to everyone with the tiniest bit of experience with the justice system.
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
Yah either that or I am a lawyer and I do know what I'm talking about and I'm laughing at you for your bizarre and inaccurate description of plea bargaining.
In the end, who knows?! Lololol
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
It's not bizarre or inaccurate though. Maybe you're a really incompetent prosecutor with your head stuck up your ass?
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
Hey hey! So I've been promoted from "not a lawyer" to "incompetent lawyer"!
LOL@u!!!
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
If it is performance art, it has been a long, long con. It is five years since /u/HStark went full-retard the first time on /r/atheism. He has been fedorable ever since.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
That was on /r/atheism?????
I really should have seen that coming.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
PROFESSIONAL QUOTE MAKER
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
Welllll that's the very portion of your narrative that's the most unrealistic! It's not that anyone (even someone w an astounding IQ like yourself) can find the first amendment case law pertinent to their situation.
It's the idea that there would be a case which was 1) "on all fours" (as they call it in the YouTube video I watched called "how to pretend to be an attorney online") with yours, 2) exculpatory, AND 3) identifiable to dirty shirt criminal attorneys UNLESS that fuckin case shows up on the Wikipedia entry for "free speech".
Lololol. My favorite part of this is you insisting I'm not an attorney. Because you and I are the only ones who care whether I'm an attorney and I'm the only one who knows whether I'm an attorney. Only God knows if I'm a good attorney and only my malpractice insurance carrier cares if I'm a competent one. But lololol it makes this whole exchange priceless for me.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Maybe it's part 3 that got you then? The family friend is far-and-away the best local criminal attorney. Like notoriously so; I have criminal friends who flipped the fuck out at how lucky I was to have him representing me the first time I was in court.
Was that seriously it? You couldn't believe I'd have a lawyer good enough to do this?
If you're a real lawyer, you've just revealed to me that the criminal justice system is even more fucked than I've thought. Like, holy shit, I didn't realize it'd be far-fetched in the eyes of an actual lawyer, for another actual lawyer to know such a piece of precedent. I thought Constitutional lawyers are there for extremely obscure or complex grey-area shit and any lawyer would still understand the basic premise of the First Amendment allowing you to spread knowledge of people and know the legal citations to prove it. Apparently I was way off
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
Hahahah that's great!
And did your friends also flip their shit when they found out you were being charged by the best prosecutor in the land?
Before the best judge?
Both of whom were also willing to ignore their professional and (in the prosecutor's case) legal duties?
Because yknow. I believe it's possible! But I might describe that scenario as... Unlikely.
Bahahafafa!!! Let's start again from the top bod brother. We are in rhythm.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Boring
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
Nooooo!!
Thx for the good times tho.
n/a Zen1 2017-04-27
*slow clap transitioning to cheering and wild hooting at the second half of the last sentence*
n/a teneyck 2017-04-27
"I can't say for sure since I don't remember the name he cited."
What?! This was a shining moment. A crowning achievement. You triumphed! And you can't remember the name of the case? How is it not emblazoned on your heart and soul?
I'm beginning to doubt you're as smart as you say you are.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I am though
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
How smart do you say you are?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
One of the most intelligent if not the most intelligent on earth
n/a Goosebuns 2017-04-27
What's the set? Humans? Animals? Organisms?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Any of the above
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
We acknowledge you are as smart as you come off as.
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
You got a favorable plea deal? I thought you said the case was thrown out.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
It was thrown out from the perspective of Levi Cohen, serial rapist, because the plea deal allows me to continue telling people about him. I don't remember actually saying it was thrown out, but if so I was just simplifying the fact that the court didn't give a fuck about this kid's charges on me and... I dunno how else to put it man, the shit was "adjudicated on contemplation of dismissal" with everyone knowing it's going to be dismissed and Levi not getting anything he wanted out of it except a couple weeks of thinking he'd win. I count that as thrown out
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I've absolutely heard it both ways in my court dealings. You're right ACD stands for adjournment, but I was also told the case was adjudicated out. I never really grasped why they seem to use the two words interchangeably when I've been in court so far.
Yeah, no shit. Still looks better for the prosecutor's record than an actual outright dismissal. Barely makes a difference to me, I only gave half a fuck about that prosecutor and wasn't about to risk delaying my actual goals by trying to fight the prosecutor and Levi at the same time. My lawyer knew this so he just explained the illegitimacy of it for the transcript's sake and then asked me if I'd accept it.
I feel like you don't have much courtroom experience at all. Local lawyers in a county tend to know most of each other. Illegitimate rulings probably happen in like half of serious cases, because prosecutors and defenders at some point are like "fuck it, fine" instead of being sworn enemies like in the movies. The prosecutor knew my lawyer didn't want to spend a lot of time on this case, my lawyer knew the prosecutor didn't want to spend a lot of time on this case, they found a mutual agreement that mostly accomplished both sides' goals. That's, to the letter, exactly how a LOT of criminal cases play out.
Not in this case. In this case it was made when I didn't break the law but the prosecutor also didn't want to admit he pressed charges on a simple case with Supreme Court precedent against it. I'm guessing that would look extremely bad for him and he was a young dude who's seemed very passionate about his career every time I've dealt with him. He doesn't wanna get chewed out by the DA (or ADA above him? I dunno the chain of command) for that dumb of a mistake.
Yeah, it was incoherent. Incoherent rulings happen. It wasn't my first or my last incoherent ruling from a court. It was probably the #1 most incoherent I've gotten though.
Also note the judge himself didn't say I could continue. My lawyer stated that enough times for everyone. If you'd been there to see the mannerisms and facial expressions between my lawyer and the prosecutor and the judge, or if you had more court room experience in general, it'd be pretty clear the judge and the prosecutor both just wanted to avoid a clear legal admission that they were wrong. I think they see themselves as upholders of the image of the system. I definitely felt like what I was agreeing to in the "wink wink nudge nudge" field of the room was to not cause any problems for the court. Like you could see in the judge's face his thought process was "alright, I guess I can't use these charges to stop you, but you're being a dumbass with this whole thing and if you commit an actual crime on this kid and end up in my court room again I'm going to be pissed." And I can see why, it'd reflect terribly on him and the prosecutor if they hit me with a bullshit charge and had to let me go and then someone got hurt in the same situation he had tried to charge me over.
Can you really not grasp any of this? You seem to mildly know your shit, so it's odd to me that you don't have the courtroom experience to know all this stuff happens. Does it make more sense to you now that I've spelled it out?
Honestly, the whole reason I'm engaging you people and telling you all of this is because on a case-by-case basis, each person makes me curious. I want to find out what's behind each commenter hating on me. I want to find the smart ones. I tell you all these details because I'm curious whether you'd understand any better once you know them.
Alrighty then
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
I'm not hating on you. Your narrative is incredibly inconsistent. Any one of the inconsistencies I could understand. Judges sometimes make bad rulings because it's convenient. Maybe the judge issued a ruling that he knew was wrong because he wanted to spare the prosecution the embarrassment of having a case dismissed (despite the fact that having a no-contact case dismissed would genuinely mean nothing to a prosecutor's career).
I guess there could be jurisdictions where ACD is called "adjudication in contemplation of dismissal" by judges and attorneys, although that makes no sense because ACD is not an adjudication but is an adjournment.1
Maybe there is a Supreme Court case that makes it clear that no-contact orders as applied here are unconstitutional, one that you somehow can't find using Google Scholar, nor remember the case name, despite being the smartest dude around. Maybe that case did somehow completely blindside the prosecution because neither they nor anyone responsible for administering no-contact orders bothered to keep up with SC rulings, despite the fact that there are like 80 a year, each of which has a very brief syllabus, and the majority of which have nothing to do with criminal law.
Maybe the best criminal lawyer around thought that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was (a) called something else and (b) a plea deal.
Any one of those I could believe. I could probably believe a couple of them put together. All of them? Not a chance.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'd think over a simple First Amendment citation, yes it would be a mildly big deal. Not a game-changer, but still something to avoid.
The first ACD I got, my lawyer (who I'm not exaggerating about the prestige of) talked to me to make sure I understood that if anyone asks if I've ever been convicted of a crime, the answer is I've been adjudicated. He made this super clear. You sure you know the word better than him?
I wasn't joking when I said I can see my lawyer just making it up though. He's been doing this a long, long, long fucking time, he might have enough experience not to have any worry of the person double-checking. I wish I could remember the name.
I dunno why you act like forgetting the name of a case that I heard mentioned a year ago reflects poorly on my intelligence though. There's a difference between "idiot savants" who can memorize everything they ever see, and actual smart people.
There were one or two cops that arrested me. Don't think they'd keep up with SC rulings. A court clerk who issued the paper, don't think she would either. Then the prosecutor and judge. Who didn't look shocked or anything, the judge just looked at my lawyer like "what the fuck? OK..." I mean, I wouldn't say the look on his face indicated that he'd say he felt "blindsided." Maybe it's a stretch to say the case applies, and he just didn't feel like arguing on it. I honestly don't know, I can pick up on facial expressions pretty well but that doesn't mean I magically know every thought in their heads. I did find it highly odd how the prosecutor/judge didn't just know to begin with that the arrest was Unconstitutional, and yet literally didn't state any thoughts at all on the cited precedent.
Who are all these people "responsible for administering no-contact orders" though?? Is that a more complicated process in your jurisdiction? Here you just sign a paper.
Anyway, you can think I'm lying, but I haven't actually lied about a single detail of this
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
You'd be mistaken. The shame, insofar as there was any (which there wouldn't be) would be on whoever issued the no-contact.
A, yes. B, I don't think any of this happened.
That's malpractice. I'm not joking when I say I can't see a well-respected lawyer doing that.
Because I don't think it exists. I googled "First Amendment" "no contact" "supreme court" and found nothing from the US supreme court -- no legal blogs, no forum posts, nothing. I searched "first amendment" and "no contact" in Google Scholar, limiting my results to the SC, and found nothing even remotely relevant. I used Westlaw to search "No Contact" and "first amendment" and "harass," and again found nothing, despite the fact that Westlaw's search function is quite good and would also return results for things like "order not to contact."
So then I searched through secondary sources available on Westlaw wondering if I'd just missed something. I found a very nice discussion of restraining orders and no-contact orders in American Jurisprudence 2d, which is current through Feb 2017. Not a single goddamn mention of no-contact orders being unconstitutionally vague.
When laws are found unconstitutional either as-applied or facially, those laws aren't just left alone because "well okay then." Someone is responsible for letting the police know not to enforce them anymore or to enforce them differently. That is the person I was referring to.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
That was him. The judge was just following his orders there. Not everything works the way it's supposed to on paper.
You're delusional if you can't even believe a basic normal legal case happened but you also think you know more law then the best local criminal attorney in Ulster County
None of that shit would be likely to find it. I'm simply enough smarter than you that I knew web search engines wouldn't be smart enough. Dunno why it's so hard for you to grasp.
And "because you don't think it exists." Notice your circular logic. You can't believe this is real because it'd be easy to find in a search. You can't believe it'd be hard to find in a search, because instead you just believe it's not real. Fucking retarded.
Note that this isn't even a crazy story. I'm a great storyteller and I couldn't even make this turn of events sound noteworthy. You're having trouble believing completely normal shit happened. It's a remarkable level of stupidity.
It's not my fault you're both too stupid to realize a search engine can't find what you're looking for, and too stupid to know what you're looking for. To make it easier, you're looking for a case where a third-party-contact clause of a contact restraint was used to gag order someone. Obviously contact restraints themselves are not Unconstitutional.
There's no way this happens often enough for that to be a thing. I'm sure that fairly regularly, some police dept in America makes a mistake like this, but I doubt any single police dept (except maybe one too corrupt to change) is doing it regularly enough to need new protocol.
Your brain is wildly unrealistic
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
Can you explain why you think the phrases "no contact" and "first amendment" would not appear in a Supreme Court decision invalidating some contact restraints on first amendment grounds?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Could you explain why you think I think those phrases wouldn't appear? Are you saying you looked through every single thing including those phrases?
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
Yes. A westlaw search gave me 52 SC cases including those phrases, once I filtered out the stuff about employment law. It was quick to browse through them.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Well I'm not sure the phrase "no contact" was ever uttered in this case. My jurisdiction uses the phrase "contact restraint" rather than your "no-contact order." I think the phrase was still said, but are you searching entire transcripts?
Either way, try "third party contact," or any other names that clause might have in other jurisdictions, instead of "no contact."
n/a isprobablyatwork 2017-04-27
The West publishing company has been the primary authority on US case law since the 18th century. They are the primary source of "reporters," volumes of case law collecting published opinions that set the legal precedents for the US judicial system. Many states do not bother to publish their own reporters any more, relying instead on West's as the official record.
Westlaw is their online arm. It collects all state and federal published opinions and has a powerful set of research tools including a lot of secondary information on cases that doesn't show up with tools like Google scholar.
All of which is to say, yes, dipshit, a Westlaw search includes all Supreme Court cases and would find it immediately if queried.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Why such a long-winded explanation? Do you not understand that my time is worth a lot more than yours?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
See it's shit like this that makes me think you're trolling, but then I think "he's just mad because he found someone who is both than him, more knowledgeable than him, and equally willing to give up his time to prove him wrong"
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
What did he prove me wrong on...?
n/a Anonylesss 2017-04-27
He proved you wrong on most things you were willing to answer. Most you just kept deflecting and stalling on. Hopefully he keeps replying to you so you eventually seek the help you need man.
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
They're not transcripts, they're opinions (which are the only part with precedential value).
Yes.
RESULTS: Nothing with "not to contact" from the SC. Nothing with "third party contact" from the SC. No cases anywhere in the 2d circuit including "third party contact" and "first amendment."
26 cases with "restraining" & "contact" & "first amendment."
Buffer zones around abortion clinics.
Case about whether you can restrain amicable parties from contacting each other (a state court tried to stop a union from helping the families of victims of unsafe working conditions, got benchslapped).
Another abortion clinic case.
Something about disclosure requirements.
a communist party freedom of expression thing.
State can't prohibit lawyers from advertising via direct mail.
Freedom of the press case. AP tried to say it was immune to federal regulation, lost.
Case about expenditure of public funds.
Prison conditions case.
SEC attempted to crack down on publication of certain investment advice.
Something about validating or choosing not to validate passports for travel to Cuba.
SC holds that statutory protections for unions does not implicitly incorporate all 1A assembly and expression protections.
Use of public funds for textbooks case.
Gang loitering statutes preventing gang members from hanging out together sometimes isn't unconstitutional.
You need at bare minimum a fact-finding hearing to support a gag order permanently enjoining the press from publishing the names of jurors.
Something about the effects of a failure to consent to a welfare officer's entry.
Statements that contribute to unfair labor practices are not part of 1st amendment protected speech.
Another abortion case.
Use of third parties as shills does not violate the Sherman Act (not because it's protected but just because it doesn't violate the Sherman Act).
Something about stun guns that only shows up because a justice made an analogy to first amendment protections.
Suppressing evidence seized pursuant to unconstitutional obscenity statute was a judicial overreach.
Another abortion thing (requiring doctors to provide certain information) was unconstitutional
Motion pictures are protected under the first amendment.
Something about minority business enterprises (first amendment only comes up by analogy).
Facial challenges to restrictions on grounds of overbreadth do not confer standing unless the plaintiff is actually affected.
provisions of Civil Rights Act creating right to recover punitive damages for violations of Title VII do not apply to Title VII case pending on appeal when statute was enacted.
That was a pain of the ass, but the case you're referencing, if it existed, would absolutely have "first amendment," "contact," and "restraining." The fact that no such case appears tells me that you're lying. I'm done.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
One, it's incredible that a dispute over whether I'm lying about completely normal expected shit happening has caused you to put in this much effort to prove me wrong, and now you're "done."
I'm still not lying in real life though, regardless of your insecurity-addled brain's version of reality. Maybe it was about the charge itself rather than the contact restraint?
I mean the main point he was making with the citation was that I haven't committed a crime. Telling people this kid's a rapist is First Amendment protected, I'm not guilty of harassment. Perhaps the query should be about people being charged with harassment or slander rather than anything to do with the contact restraint. Undermining the charge would undermine the contact restraint based on it.
Although, I gotta say, boiling it down, you said this:
That's retarded. There's no reason to assume that. Nothing I've said anywhere above gave you reason to assume that, I just said to try "third party contact" trying to help you find it.
You really must be a terrible lawyer if you are a real one. Just your ability to follow chains of reasoning and formulate arguments is shot af
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
That's not true unless your contact restriction was unconstitutional. And that isn't true unless you have a case saying such contact restrictions are unconstitutional, because no-contact orders always include contact for the purpose of conveying factual information. They'd be fucking useless if they didn't -- imagine a world in which abusive boyfriends could contact their exes, but only if they restricted themselves to saying factual things like "I never slept with anyone else" or "your new boyfriend isn't as tall as I am."
But, again, that's only true if your no-contact order was unconstitutional. Any decision invalidating your no-contact order would have to relate specifically to no-contact orders, or else be so broad that it was of earthshattering importance (like, I would have heard about it in Con Law important).
There is no part of your story that makes sense. There could be a case that I just can't find, but there almost certainly isn't (at the bare minimum, a case with the effect you describe would have shown up in Am. Jur. 2d, which is current through this year and has nothing at all that would have helped you). In the alternative, a highly-respected criminal attorney might make up a non-existent case to get someone off of a charge for violating their no-contact, but almost certainly wouldn't.
The "best criminal attorney" in Ulster County could be mistaken about ACD terminology, but almost certainly isn't. The jurisdiction you're operating in could have simply failed to take into account the blatant unconstitutionality of their no-contact order practices, but probably didn't. The prosecutor could have just completely failed to keep up with relevant Supreme Court rulings, but probably didn't. You could have somehow genuinely walked away from the courtroom thinking that your ACD was a plea deal, but probably didn't.
Even assuming for the sake of argument I ignored all of the batshit crazy things you have said before, even assuming that I was exceptionally credulous here, I wouldn't believe you even a little bit.
You seem like the kind of guy who gets a hard-on for bayesian reasoning. Even if my priors predisposed me to believe you, each of these inconsistencies I've talked about makes your story less and less credible: each of them is more likely to arise if you're making all of this up than if you're telling the truth. Taking all of them together, your story is simply not believable.
I'm not a lawyer, and never claimed I was. I'm a lowly student. If I were a lawyer, these Westlaw searches would be costing me money.
n/a isprobablyatwork 2017-04-27
Not to feed his delusion, but are you sure you are looking to the right case law? I think hstarkravinglunatic is a New Yorker. Have you looked to state law? NY has a free speech provision of their constitution.
n/a isprobablyatwork 2017-04-27
Not to feed his delusion, but are you sure you are looking to the right case law? I think hstarkravinglunatic is a New Yorker. Have you looked to state law? NY has a free speech provision of their constitution.
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
Lord help me. That's an excellent point. Well, if that's what it is, he's got to admit that the dismissal doesn't follow from a "plain reading of the First Amendment" or whatever the hell he said, so I'm satisfied.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
How the fuck not?
Sorry buddy, but that's your lack of any basic ability to follow chains of reasoning fucking with you again. Your brain must be flailing around with the almost-awareness of how ridiculous its own argument is that now you're saying some straight up gibberish like that.
I see how it works. Your brain could skate right over that first sentence. By saying I must be guilty of harassment unless the contact restraint is Unconstitutional, you then let yourself skate into talking about how contact restraints also apply to factual information. The initial fact is technically true, but it ignores how the contact restraint being unconstitutional doesn't actually hinge on whether the Supreme Court has ever ruled on it, and whether the Supreme Court has ever ruled on the First Amendment's protection of speech about people also doesn't actually depend on whether they've ruled on contact restraints made over such speech. That completely ruins your statement, part of your brain tugs away at you like "but dude obviously the SC could rule on the charges without ever ruling on such contact restraints," but you manage to avoid hearing it, and so you successfully use that first paragraph to frame things around something true. Then now that it's framed around something true, you just embellish on how true that obviously true thing is for a whole paragraph, and by the end of the paragraph you've filled your brain with that nice feeling of "everything I'm saying is true" and totally eliminated that part tugging away at you for how fucking retarded it was to begin with to act like the Supreme Court couldn't possibly have ruled on similar charges themselves without ruling on a similar contact restraint. Sorry to explicitly spell this out, making you reflect not only on that one sentence you were trying to avoid realizing the retardation of, but also how far your brain will go with retarded shit to protect its fragile image of itself as intelligent.
But, again, no it's not. You know it's not. Does it hurt, knowing you reiterated this dumb shit and did the same "type a single false sentence to open up a whole true paragraph of possibilities" shit twice in a row? Doesn't it almost feel pointless to even have a brain, if it can just mislead itself like that?
You sure? I think the contact restraint would be invalidated by a case that invalidates the charges it was based on. Would that be of such earth-shattering importance? Put on your big boy clothes and play pretend like you have conscious thoughts in your head instead of just emotional word soup.
Then you are a lawyer who can't make sense of a single part of a normal, everyday town court criminal trial.
There almost certainly is though, and if not it still wouldn't change anything that happened. I was there. The fact that it "almost certainly wouldn't" happen just means this is a noteworthy story if it did happen that way. Doesn't magically negate the shit that I witnessed happening in the courtroom with my own eyes and ears.
Agreed.
Except they obviously did, as evidenced by how they arrested me for telling people about someone's actions, which you as a lawyer should easily be able to determine is Constitutionally protected speech. In fact, you were arguing earlier how pointless contact restraints would be if there were exceptions for factual speech - very true, would totally disprove me if my argument at all hinged on contact restraints having exceptions for factual speech. But I'm guessing you know basic civics and how our country was founded? Imagine how pointless the First Amendment would be if you could just be like "hey, this guy is saying stuff I don't like about me and he won't stop! Arrest him!" Can you follow a chain of reasoning similar to your own??? Except, y'know, actually applicable to the opposing side's argument. Probably not, lil bit too advanced for you.
So he was intentionally, maliciously, extremely illegally pretending the whole time? Listen, I don't like the guy. Prosecutors are scumbags, especially in the United States, especially in New York. I don't want to defend him. But he did not strike me as someone who'd do that.
To clarify what actually happened in his head, since you apparently aren't capable of hypothesizing it (and maybe it'd be really hard to think of without having interacted with him face-to-face at the proceedings), but he basically assumed I was a liar and Levi was telling the truth, rather than vice-versa. He thought he was going after me for spreading lies about the kid in an attempt to ruin his reputation, based on personal issues. He was an idiot, but not some corrupt asshole breaking the Constitution on purpose. From his perspective, he thought he had an angle against me. I think he expected my lawyer to talk to me, get the facts he was missing, and then be scared as shit of going to trial and having those facts come out. So he was surprised when my lawyer came out of our private conversation completely upholding that I committed no crime and that we wouldn't budge on that. Probably made him second-guess his conclusion. Either way, it's not the batshit insane possibility you're using as an argument against what happened, of him just completely flubbing his duties to an unrealistic extent.
All my other ACD's have been plea deals, forgive me for the slip of the tongue dude? You're really reaching trying to use that as an argument.
That's because "taking all of them together" creates your wild-ass version of the story, where the Supreme Court had to make a supersized national spectacle out of a ruling just to uphold the basic premise of the First Amendment and the prosecutor had to be a cartoon character of a corrupt lawyer in order to fuck up like this... rather than the normal set of events that actually happened.
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
I am done. I simply cannot compete with your boundless stamina and propensity for inventing increasingly outlandish explanations for your idiotic story.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Sounds like my long-winded second paragraph hit a little too close to home
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
When did he do that? He only picked a fight with a drug addict and convicted felon
n/a Titan_Transcendent 2017-04-27
Out of interest, what are your criteria for determining which commenters are the smart ones?
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
HAHAHAHAHA. I love it when you go full-retard.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
It's like it's Christmas again. The only thing that would make this thread perfect would be Jewdank returning
n/a Zen1 2017-04-27
yeah well you cant call yourself a CEO while having gaps in the very most basic foundation of financial or economic knowledge.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Actually, real talk, I won't be titling myself CEO until these gaps are gone. But I'm still going to play dumb, and you don't actually know what you're talking about if you think I couldn't just call myself CEO as soon as the company is off the ground. Lots of CEOs don't know jack shit about finance, economics, management, etc. even compared to me. They just run their companies into the ground
n/a Zen1 2017-04-27
If you're going to claim someone is "not a lawyer" when they've passed the bar exam, then equivalently I can surely also claim that you are "not a CEO" when you own your own company.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Except a lawyer is not only a job title, but also an area of expertise. CEO is just a job title.
n/a Zen1 2017-04-27
Correct. No one will be able to refute definitions of words that only exist in your head.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You know how retarded you look trying to say the above is only in my head? I know you don't, but lmao
n/a Zen1 2017-04-27
That depends on your definition of retarded
n/a WilrowHoodGonLoveIt 2017-04-27
Being a lawyer IS an area of expertise, you are correct. Passing the bar is a symbolic and legal representation that an attorney has requisite legal knowledge to practice law.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Except if they cheat on it, which this person would have clearly had to in order to pass.
n/a WilrowHoodGonLoveIt 2017-04-27
If you could name five of the subjects tested on the bar, or hell even the name of the multi-state test without googling, I would be extremely surprised.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
And I'm not the one pretending to be a lawyer
n/a WilrowHoodGonLoveIt 2017-04-27
How can you speculate about the ease of the test/the ease of cheating on the test if you don't even know what the test is called or what it is examining?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I couldn't then, obviously
n/a WilrowHoodGonLoveIt 2017-04-27
Just to settle a discussion, is Stark your bio dad's last name or step-dad's last name
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Neither, just mine
n/a WilrowHoodGonLoveIt 2017-04-27
You just picked it?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I used it as an IRC nick, liked how it looked next to stuff I said, just aesthetically. Started using it as my name in general because it really seemed aesthetically fitting to my personality. I still think so: Stark. Just looks like how my personality feels to me. Always hated my original last name so decided to get it legally changed to that. Watched Iron Man somewhere along the way, saw so many parallels and reflections between Iron Man and myself, combined with the name, it legit felt like destiny was telling me to run with it. Kinda like how people with delusions of grandeur work, except I think the parallels were laid on a little thicker than the weak links they tend to exaggerate, and I'm gonna turn out to be right about my epic destiny.
n/a WilrowHoodGonLoveIt 2017-04-27
oh man, so close to self realization but yet so far
n/a TheWiseYoda 2017-04-27
what do you think of the r/drama mods?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I think they all have delusions of grandeur and aren't anywhere near as smart as they say. I bet none of them will ever go anywhere in real life. Their greatest contributions to the world will just be copypastas, the lot of them. They all probably live with their moms and have no idea what the real world is like. They have stupid usernames too. Oh, and they should all be taken completely seriously at all times. None of them ever joke or have a clever double-meaning or anything like that. If they say something dumb, they're just dumb.
n/a TheWiseYoda 2017-04-27
u/ComedicSans
u/snallygaster
u/serialflamingo
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Nigga, I have a handful of degrees and I'm a lawyer. Suck my gainfully-employed dick.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Why do you elevate your diction? You're in /r/Drama. We already know what you are.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Ayyyyyy. This is the dankest thing you've ever said.
n/a wumbo17412 2017-04-27
you calling r/legaladvice retarded is like a kid wondering why they have to ride the shortbus too.
n/a backltrack 2017-04-27
It's mostly just people spouting unverified credentials and the same parrotted advice. Basically drama but people have to larp as professionals.
n/a HULK_HOGAN_FASCISM 2017-04-27
Except Drama embraces its autism.
n/a backltrack 2017-04-27
IANAL but.......
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
I am a lawyer, but I prefer to laugh at people. Fuck da police.
n/a backltrack 2017-04-27
You misunderstood. I, ANAL.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
You anal? Dude. At least have the decency to call it a bussy.
n/a backltrack 2017-04-27
It's not even feminine :(
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
oh i am laffing
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
I am. Shrug.
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
when people need relevant information about the legality of fucking sheep, you'll come in helpful.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
I'm good to practice in Australia, the UK, Canada, California and NYC. About the only place my qualifications and professional accreditations don't work is the the Deep South, but who in fuck would want to work there?
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
yeah, your sheep fucker brethren are international and they always need lawyers
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
You're about twenty years out with the sheep jokes, the big money is in dairy now. Get it right.
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
New Zealand's reputation of unabashed sheep fucking is eternal
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Are you downvoting? Kek.
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
Look at my flair. Look again. My Constant Unrelenting Neutrality is making you downvote your own comments.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
I got insta-downvoted on my reply. It's either you or white people.
Mayocide now
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
I agree
CUMSKIN HOLOCAUST
n/a DarqwoIf 2017-04-27
I know. It is especially jarring for those of us who actually are genius billionaire playboy philanthropist.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Except I'm actually one of the most intelligent people on earth
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Shit like this is literally why we're here.
Why aren't you on this sub all the time?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
This place would get boring and stressful for me if I were here all the time. I like that y'all page me sparingly and keep it a lil amusing
n/a n4rkki 2017-04-27
Nah you should definitely become a regular.
n/a Arathian 2017-04-27
Please stay. Your stories inspire me through life.
n/a wumbo17412 2017-04-27
Wew lad
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I wonder which stage of development Stark Industries will be at when people like you admit I'm what I say I am. Or if you'll still rationalize yourselves as superior somehow, Trump-hater style.
n/a hakkzpets 2017-04-27
I'm always looking for new investment opportunities, and it's not every day you stumble upon a trillion-dollar start-up.
Got any information on upcoming projects?
n/a wumbo17412 2017-04-27
I think he's working on an air conditioning unit that is invisible to stepdads.
A game-changer, that one is.
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
maybe he'll start researching ways for 20 something NEETs to move out of their parents house and get a job
n/a wumbo17412 2017-04-27
technology can only go so far
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'm not an easy person to invest in. I shed a lot of traditional wisdom in favor of figuring things out on my own. So stuff pops up like you trying to use the word "equity" in the conversation and then me not knowing exactly what you mean. Like, ok it's ownership of a portion of the company, but you still don't really actually own that portion of the company? Like I'm not even sure whether equity would actually entitle you to that percentage of the company's profits or revenue? I could Google it but I don't care or even want to know. I'd define terms of a deal in more plain English. I'd employ executives who are willing to do the same. I'd expect it to be much better for the company than any expertise in financial lingo would be, because what I do know about the finance world shows me that its people and methods are mostly retarded. Words like "income" and "profit" are just thrown around meaninglessly despite having actual definitions in the dictionary that could be used instead. I'm not playing that game; I will legitimately be a multi-billion-dollar CEO and still play dumb pretending not to know the meanings of common finance terms, continuing to force plain-English negotiations. And you probably read all this and just shut down and have zero doubt that I'm incompetent. Which is why in the long run I will dominate your kind, probably create a trillion-dollar corporation and maybe destroy capitalism.
If you're one of the rare types to read all this and not shut down - probably doubt me heavily, but still wonder a bit rather than being dead certain - then message me. We'll just discuss shit in plain English until you reach a certain conclusion on my competence. I believe if you're open-minded after reading this comment, you will eventually come around to the view that I'm among the best businessmen ever to live, if not simply the best. I'll teach you the meanings of efficiency and synergy, my dude. But it will take a very long time conversing. Like I said, I'm difficult to invest in. If you want the one investment opportunity that can make you hundreds of millions in returns on an investment of a few thousand dollars, you gotta work for it. If my pitch could be made quickly and efficiently, you'd be competing with so many other investors. The complexity and obscurity of my talents is what keeps this opportunity in the bargain bin for you. Are you the one investor smart enough to figure me out and get in at ground zero?
n/a wumbo17412 2017-04-27
holy fuck get Kleiner Perkins on the phone we got ourselves a unicorn here
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-04-27
I swear to God everytime you post on this site you create a new copypasta holy cow
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Put my soul into that one for yas
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-04-27
Can you put together a business plan for me?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
What are you good at and what capital (any type of resources you can use) do you have available to you?
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-04-27
No, I want to see your business plan.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Nice try Mark Cuban
n/a hakkzpets 2017-04-27
I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm looking to invest in this upcoming trillion-dollar company.
I don't doubt a second that you are the best business man to ever set his foot on this planet. I have actually read a lot of stuff you have said through out the years, and the first thing I said to myself was "this kid will go places".
Now, you don't throw money at a 15 year old kid unless you really want to lose it, so I did like any wise investor would do and waited.
You're older now and have have kept a steady course set on success, which is the reason as to why I'm confident to invest money in your ideas.
So if you're interested in outside investors, I have the capital to get you going.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Hit me with that capital then
n/a Maga_Brahmin 2017-04-27
My money's on prison or psych ward.
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
Dude jargon exists for a reason, so that people concisely know what you're talking about. Speaking "plain English" is only going to make your communication needlessly long-winded and imprecise.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You're trying to correct the guy who assaulted his step-dad with an air conditioner and blamed the step dad for aggravating him.
Unless you're trying to annoy him further just save your breath.
If you're trying to annoy him, try talking about the war on drugs.
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-04-27
FTFY
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You mean needfully long-winded for the sake of precision. Because there's a difference between "jargon" for the sake of precise communication, and just arbitrarily defining amounts of money to refer to as "profit" and "income" regardless of the actual amounts of those things, or dealing in things like "equity" which have pre-defined terms that generally in this day and age are not a good deal for either side.
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
Within a particular accounting basis (i.e. GAAP, statutory accounting) those terms all have precise and consistent definitions.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Yes, precisely designed to simplify some things and conflate others at the convenience of those who happened to set the terms early in the formation of the modern finance world. Consistent with those arbitrarily-set bullshit definitions, and usually also consistent with an utter disregard for the reality of the amounts they're talking about. See "Hollywood accounting" and the common-knowledge trope about movies being calculated out as "unprofitable." Also see how international corporations do their accounting, with laws laid out (at the convenience of the aforementioned pioneers of modern finance) to have them sell their own products to themselves through different national corporate "divisions" and then post "profits" or "losses" that have nothing to do with the actual amount of money being made or lost by the actual group of people and accounts comprising the company, either within a given division or globally. See how rich people are allowed to make the vast majority of their income off of things which are literally just not defined as income. Just like, yeah, all that money that came in to my accounting of wealth this year? Let's just agree that's not income.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can work in financing without realizing how utterly retarded it all is and how much more profitable it would be for a straight-shooting business entity to take control of their business dealings and do them their own way.
If you know more about accounting than me but also have enough of a brain to see where I'm coming from, I'd love to discuss this more. But no matter how much you know, if you're going to sit here and act like income isn't income, I'm not interested in what you have to say. I hope you agree with the obvious fact that this game is bullshit, and our disagreement is in you thinking (wrongly, I'd bet) that it'd be more profitable for me to play said game.
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
You need to unmarry technical definitions from layman definitions in your head before this can go any further. A scientist shouldn't correct a random person on the street for using the word theory to mean a guess or a hunch even though that's not how he uses it. Accountants know what profit means and they understand it's not what immediately jumps to people's minds when they hear the word profit. And you know what? That's fine. Scientists deal with it, doctors deal with it, lawyers deal with it. Language evolves and words have different meanings in different contexts.
I'm not an accountant, anything I've learned has been incidental to my work as an entry level actuarial analyst. Your complaint is similar to one that many people have about statistics. People who do not understand statistics at a deep level are justifiably suspicious about statistics because "stats lie". The thing is, stats don't lie, they can only be misleading to people who read too much into them or do not interpret them rationally. The same thing happens with accounting.
How exactly are you going to actually make money by using non-standard definitions of financial terms? Will your company refuse to engage in financial reporting?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Dude, they're not unmarriable. Technical definitions are supposed to be more in-depth versions of the laymans' definitions. Calling income "not income" isn't a technical term that needs to be unmarried from the layman's, it's just bullshit. And it's not like these words came along from different origins. There are technical terms that come along independently from the layman's terms. Like in medicine there are tons, "sympathetic" neural responses don't have to do with what we call "sympathy," the linguistic calculation of what to call them just happened to make the same word. Referring to "profit" as "losses" did not come along from someone doing linguistics and happening to come up with the word "losses" again independently of the original word. It came from someone wanting to cover up their profits.
Get real, dude.
By investors and customers paying us, I'd presume.
I should actually clarify a bit. I'm not completely opposed to playing the game. Early on, for example, I will probably use every loophole possible to avoid paying taxes. Not for the extra money, but because the current New York state and American federal governments have no legitimacy. I'm opposed, but not strictly, to the idea of letting an illegitimate government rob us. More strictly, I'm opposed to the idea of funding either of these governments' most serious crimes. In the early stages, I might have no choice but to let my company engage in a bit of the bullshit.
However, in the longer run, I do plan to completely break free from the games. When the company is big enough to function as its own sovereign entity, the government will have to either cooperate or see us do so.
Will we refuse to engage in financial reporting? I don't think so. I have an affinity for transparency. Stark Industries probably have publicly accessible, real-time financial reporting done digitally on every detail of the company's finances, as well as in-depth reviews and audits and such by accountants at regular intervals. I'm not going to completely rule out the idea of becoming a shadow company and refusing to report anything, I'm just saying right now that's the opposite of my plans. The only likely way I can see my company being anything but transparent, is if I someday decide to have an IPO for Stark Industries (which would have the aforementioned public digital finance tracking) while carving out the most sentimental or otherwise needed subsidiaries of the company to buy for myself, privately doing business as the Stark Enterprises or Stark Innovations trademark.
But, this is all probably aside from the point of your questions. Again, to the first one, we'll make our money from customers paying us, duh. To the second one, refusing to engage in financial reporting is nothing dude, we'll declare sovereignty if we have to.
I have to ask though, why would we refuse to engage in financial reporting? How do you not understand the simple possibility of doing said reporting without lying? Like, actually defining terms in ways that make sense? You really can't comprehend that concept?
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
Industries in the United States are regulated. For instance, insurance companies have to file quarterly and annual financial statements with the NAIC. These financial statements must follow what is known as statutory accounting, which is a set of accounting standards and definitions that are standardized across the board (with minor variations between states) for insurance companies. You don't just get to report what you want, you have to supply an itemized list of figures that follow the prescribed definitions.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I like how you quoted a question, then spent a long paragraph not actually answering the question.
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
I answered the question. You don't get to define terms "in ways that make sense" and still be compliant with the law. Accounting practices are standardized and you don't get to just report your own metrics. You report profits as they are defined (by GAAP most likely in your case) or you get your filing rejected or convicted of fraud.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Actually, the First Amendment ensures I do. I can put out any report I want if the information contained is in good faith and not bound by any NDA's. You're crazy if you think I'm going to sign NDA's on my company's finances, or be found not to be in good faith publishing in-depth data in accurate English terms.
You do though. First Amendment. Why do you repeat yourself?
They could not convict me of fraud. For them to do that, I'd have to pretend I'm reporting by their definitions while actually using my own. If I'm openly trashing their definitions, they might be able to convict me of something, but certainly not fraud.
Either way, I'm sure my accountants would have time to put out accurate public reports separate from the government-hoops reports, and if anyone tried to stop me I'd keep pleading the First Amendment until I had a ruling in my favor (which I surely would).
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
Yeah that's totally fine and what most large corporations already do. For instance SEC reports use GAAP accounting while the IRS requires its own separate form of accounting that's more strict about book values. Most companies have their own proprietary set of books as well that they use for internal "best estimate" projections. I'm just saying that if you don't follow the rules you're going to be shut down by a regulator.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
If I don't follow the rules, it will be because I figured out how to get away with it. That's what makes your whole point, kinda pointless. I've already thought plenty about this stuff.
You're aware the SEC doesn't apply to private companies, right? I'm not sure whether I'll ever take the company public. I like the idea of creating the first trillion-dollar private company. There is certainly no chance of going public early. If we go public, the public company will be Stark Industries, the multi-billion-dollar multinational diversified conglomerate. There will be all sorts of options with the SEC. We could just jump through their hoops. We as a company could get public support, tell them to go fuck themselves, and go through the political process of protesting their bullshit. Regardless, there are certain subsidiaries I'll buy for myself once we have an IPO, keeping them private. At that point, that new private split-off company would be more "mine" than the publicly-traded Stark Industries.
As for the IRS, again, there are options. We'll have to deal with the IRS even at the first stage of development, where it is not so feasible to get public support and go through with political protest. I'll have to consult lawyers on what to do at that point. I don't think it's as far-fetched as you think, to imagine they'd just audit us and make sure we're paying the right amount, maybe fine us or generally hate us for flubbing all the paperwork but not outright shut us down.
Understand that my range of options at the start of the company is anywhere from "just jump through the IRS' hoops and do the paperwork the way they expect" to "file as 501(c)(3), have good lawyers, and accept the restrictions imposed." What you suggest, being shut down by a regulator, is not on that list of options.
One more thing. When this whole conversation started, I said a straight-shooting business entity would be more profitable if they took control of their business dealings and didn't play games. While I personally am a rebel and willing to have my company protest the government, this isn't what I meant. I was referring to stuff like refusing to use "finance jargon" in negotiations with investors - at least when said jargon isn't conducive to realism. Or stuff like closely monitoring your company's accounting and keeping it as legit as possible, instead of just chalking it up to something "accountants" handle and letting them do whatever bullshit their college taught them to do.
n/a brianpv 2017-04-27
Good luck mate.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Thanks! Already got lucky with my intellect though, I only need average luck going forward.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Did you actually choose your flair? I feel like you chose something else and another mod changed it out of pity for the rest of the sub
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I chose it, you're just bad at being right
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Says the unemployed drug addict who lives at home to the successful human being
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Yes, you're one of those two. Take a guess which (hint, the first one applies to those who steal cars to buy drugs)
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
If I continue taking you seriously it'll go something like this.
Me: "You understand drugs have purposes other than treating addictions of themselves, right?"
You: "CAR THIEF AND ALSO NECKBEARD. I BET YOU'RE SECRETLY HOMELESS"
I'm done, it's gotten boring
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
And I'll say "There's no purpose besides that for needing to steal a car to buy drugs"
Weren't you actually homeless before mommy and Mr. Air-conditioner took you back in? Not sure about the aids though.
It's okay, sometimes we argue with those smarter than us, and they refuse to admit assault with an air-conditioner is a reasonable thing to do.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
So literally rephrased "IS ONE OF THOSE 'PURPOSES' STEALING CARS??"
So boring dude. Have you ever even smoked weed? It doesn't make people suicidal from withdrawal. I can't tell if you're actually this retarded or indeed just trolling me. I mean I know you're just trolling but it's hard to tell which parts are how retarded you really are vs which parts are embellished
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
That's the point retard, you stole a car because you were so pathetic you couldn't handle being sober. I don't know how you've avoided this point through the last dozen points but you've successfully ignored it each time, with occasional halfhearted deflections like misunderstand what I said, which you did above. Just a heads up for misunderstanding this one, it's pretty clear that you understand that you had a serious drug problem if you were stealing cars to feed it. But please, continue to deny it.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand the basic premise of addiction
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
So the hilarious fact that you're trying to tell someone who's learning abnormal psychology about addiction by claiming wikipedia is your source is great, but not the point.
The point is that you were willing to break the law because you couldn't handle not having the drugs. That's called being addicted.
Get help.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Wikipedia isn't my source, but it's the source you need if you think someone who can't live with being sober is addicted... to weed. Maybe you're confusing it with alcohol or something. If you're in college studying addiction and you understand it this poorly, I think you're going to fail that course.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
For someone who claims to know about addiction, you sure don't know that psychological addiction is a real thing which you have.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
But it's not even remotely like being an alcoholic, nor do I have it. I'm physically addicted to weed, not "psychologically." 99% of the time people talking about being "psychologically" addicted to weed are just diverting from their mild physical addiction. But the physical addiction from weed is way too mild to make anyone suicidal, as is any normal psychological addiction to anything. You are definitely gonna fail this course
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You just said you weren't addicted. My god are you a liar. Way to start moving the goalposts, nitpicking, and gas lighting. You really fit that list perfectly.
And this from the man who dropped out of community college. It must be true!
How can you be so stupid yet so smug? It's seriously incredible.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'm not addicted to a significant extent. Simpler to just say "not addicted," especially in a discussion with someone as retarded as you. Where did I even say that though? I don't remember it
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Right here dipshit, nice attempt at changing the goal posts though
This was your defense as to why you taking drugs isn't being an addict. And I have proven you are you pathetic waste of space.
Get help for your sociopath narcissism.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Too bored now. I hope you're not legit
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
You poor kid, can't come up with an argument, so dismiss, insult, or lie to feel better.
It's okay, you'll do better next time.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
THIS IS THE KIND OF SHIT WE KEEP YOU HERE FOR! KEEP IT UP :D
n/a KingBlunts 2017-04-27
I hold a Master's of Accounting and am a practicing auditor at a Big 4 accounting firm. You are an absolute idiot and I genuinely hope you one day try to open a business so I can witness your reaction on reddit when every accountant in the tri-state area laughs you off the phone.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
LMFAO
n/a KingBlunts 2017-04-27
a fat neckbeard NEET with no talents looking down on someone whose relatively successful in everything you've failed at and has the credentials to prove it. never would've guessed!
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Lmao. I could fail at more stuff than you've ever succeeded at, fail at more stuff than you've ever failed at, and still succeed at more stuff than you've succeeded & failed at combined. You haven't done shit with your life and haven't even tried. You're a fucking auditor with 30 bosses between you and the owner of your work. You're barely even a person anymore.
n/a KingBlunts 2017-04-27
Whoever said every single on of your posts is a copypasta was incredibly on point. You said you'd like to discuss your ideas with someone who knows more about accounting than you. I guarantee I know more about accounting, finance, the legal environment, and probably every single aspect of the business world considering I have multiple degrees in it. Meanwhile, all you do is excel at generating upvotes on r/drama since you still haven't quite managed to realize how angry, nonsensical, and how much of an overall joke you are. I'm really hoping you respond to this message with something special.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Your hopes are as pathetic as your accomplishments, just as I suspected.
n/a KingBlunts 2017-04-27
Please name 1 thing you have accomplished that you're proud of. Lifting an air conditioning unit 5 feet and 3 inches off the ground doesn't count.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Nigga I could be prouder of myself for cooking a dank bowl of pasta and it would still probably be more than all you've contributed to the world in your life to be proud of
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Why aren't you ashamed of your unabashed hypocrisy and waste of life and potential? You are the worst living human being I've ever seen and I don't understand how you can be so blind to this.
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
And yet none of the people whose lives you've changed will even cuddle with you. Sad.
n/a FutureElectrician 2017-04-27
The war on drugs is a good thing.
People who smoke pot deserve prison.
You have a small penis until prove otherwise.
n/a froibo 2017-04-27
If you could bottle your shamelessness you would be the richest person in the world.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Tru
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Lmao. Donald Trump's aversion to reality.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You mean Donald Trump's genius. The dude has perfected playing dumb, he has literally millions of retards like you falling for it. I can totally picture him pretending not to know finance terms so that people have to actually state things accurately.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Said nobody except Donald Trump.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
And the majority of America
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
*majority of electoral college voters.
Not the same thing :^)
And irrespective, Americans are retarded.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I meant majority of America. Electoral college voters are bound to their constituents, their votes say little about their own opinions of the candidate.
Nice moving the goal posts now. "Nobody agrees with you!" "Lots of people agree with you." "Well, lots of people are retarded!"
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Voting for Trump =/= thinking he is a genius, you muppet.
And most Americans are retarded. You are American, are you not?
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
Voting for Trump =/= thinking he is a genius, you muppet.
And most Americans are retarded. You are American, are you not?
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
this
n/a bad_argument_police 2017-04-27
You know Trump lost the popular vote, right?
n/a SwedishCommie 2017-04-27
Occam's razor, dude has managed to piss off almost every ally in the first 100 days, economy is slowing down, the wall isn't getting built, ACA is still standing despite GOP owning all three branches. Face it he isn't very intelligent.
n/a OldOrder 2017-04-27
/u/xnotch Please invest in Darqwolff's crazy ass company
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
YES. I'd give him 60% gross revenue in perpetuity for $1000 up-front, I don't give a fuck. I love Notch and it's a life dream of mine to get to know him and help him out with whatever's made him so unhappy from what I've read about. If he wanted to invest in my company that'd be perfect, cause I'd hook him up with the most stupidly good deal ever and he'd have an example of someone giving him billions of dollars out of sheer appreciation for Minecraft as an artwork rather than Microsoft giving him billions due to profit incentives. Like damn that'd have to feel good for him. I think he doesn't really understand how dope Minecraft is. For real I've thought a lot about Notch (because what he went through contained possible lessons for what I'll go through as in business) and I bet this would be perfect as fuck
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
He'd get more out of it if he got $1000 in cash and burned it. You're so full of shit it hurts.
n/a Ranilen 2017-04-27
I love that you're willing to play along, but you can't lay it on so thick.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'm not playing along, I'm dead serious
n/a FutureElectrician 2017-04-27
You're the type of person who I'd convince 30 for a g was a good deal. You always get charged more because nobody can bear being with your annoying ass.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
My haters would think that, since they're idiots. I usually get good deals, I'm definitely not paying above market for a gram. Most of my dealers are friends with me
n/a FutureElectrician 2017-04-27
"Friends"
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
If they invite me over to smoke me up for free when they're bored, that's the opposite of your retarded concept that I'd pay $30/g. Putting quotation marks on stuff doesn't make your beliefs any less retarded
n/a FutureElectrician 2017-04-27
The fact that you think even one of your dealers is your friend shows so much. Try hanging out with one without weed. I bet you're addicted and let it dominate your life. When's the last time you smoked? Right fucking now?
You need to drop the smack and pick up a job.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Dude, he's already CEO of the future Stark Industries (trademark pending due to Disney lawsuit), why would he ever get a job?
n/a Ls777 2017-04-27
This guy is 100% legit yo
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-27
I think this may be one of the best copypastas I've ever seen
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
if you ever even achieve one tenth of this, i will personally fly out to wherever you are and suck your toes on a livestream
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You realize one tenth would be Stark Industries as a hundred-billion-dollar megacorp? Just saying, I think I catch your drift and you probably meant like a thousandth or something
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
i meant 1/10th of the first sentence, not trillions of dollars. like, any sort of job would honestly even impress me. i'd be shocked if you could hold down a single job over median salary for a few years, honestly
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
But there isn't 1/10th of the first sentence. It'll go from Stark Enterprises through Stark Innovations and then probably straight to Stark Industries. Gonna be running out of Iron Man references if I keep adding developmental steps. Even the Stark Ventures stage already lacks an original in the comics, but it'll only be a subsidiary. It only counts as its own developmental stage because it'll probably be contributing the majority of the company's growth during that period, despite being a subsidiary. I'm not going further than that. I'm not having a whole period of development where the name of the company itself isn't even an Iron Man reference. No way, man.
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
jesus christ
this is peak autism
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
If your name was Stark, and you were planning on being a multi-billion dollar tech CEO, and then you found out about Iron Man, you'd want to name your company Stark Industries too. No other name could possibly be as good.
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
you couldn't even be trusted as a sandwich artist, i don't think you should worry too much about the names to use
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'm actually a bomb-ass cook
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
poorly lit and shot video of a greasy weirdo heating up frozen pre-made burger patties and adding honey
holy shit lad
i'm not even sure what to say here
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Yea dude elite methods
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
i can
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You literally can't though
n/a Kazimir-Malevich 2017-04-27
Pls keep talking ro riemann, its two ends of the autism spectrum combining and its 👍
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
You don't get it dude, I paralyzed him. He literally can't deny that shi
n/a Kazimir-Malevich 2017-04-27
I know he cant, but he's gonna try
Arent u /r/riemann1413
n/a EvanHarper 2017-04-27
dude check out his culinary innovations though
n/a aonome 2017-04-27
It looks like he has a neckbeard in his picture
You can't make this shit up
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-04-27
I like the Rain Man price he picked.
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-27
Okay, one millionth
n/a TeePlaysGames 2017-04-27
If you earn enough to pay for a fucking bus ticket I will lick your piggy toes for hours my man.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
If you're a hot girl and you can offer something more interesting than sucking toes... then I'm still not paying for a bus ticket just to fuck some stranger. You can come to me, but you gotta wait until next year when my girl turns 18 and moves in with me, because I'm letting her keep me to herself until then
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
Wtf dude, did you just admit to grooming a minor?
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Yus
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
With that filthy beard, you're probably just grooming a trap, no worries
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I saw her naked when she was born bro. Been grooming her ever since
n/a John_Ketch 2017-04-27
And she had bussy right? Those damn slutty traps!
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
How are you not on a lis- oh right yeah
n/a Magoonie 2017-04-27
Maybe you should start small and get an entry level job and keep it for a while before you start taking over the world with your own company. Just a thought.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
But the entry-level job is starting to take over the world with my own company...
n/a OldOrder 2017-04-27
/u/xNotch pls invest in Darqwolf's crazy ass company
n/a Sharkaddy2 2017-04-27
We all feel like this when we're thirteen.
n/a OldOrder 2017-04-27
And you couldn't figure out how to steal a car without getting caught?
n/a DankrudeSandstorm 2017-04-27
Do you actually believe that? I can't tell if you're just embracing the meme or not.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
It's both. I'm embracing the meme, but I believe most of this stuff. I definitely believe I'm one of the most intelligent people on earth
n/a PM_ME_RAREST_PEPES 2017-04-27
I know the area you're from. I actually really love the Hudson Valley, so I'm not gonna call you a hick. But, if you've never left and experienced much of anything outside of your little world, you really have no idea how little you actually know.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I know all of Ulster County really well, not just any one part of it. I kinda know NYC a bit. Somewhere between tourist and resident level knowledge. I've spent a fair amount of time in Dutchess County and Greene County too. Been on a few road trips to various parts of the east coast like D.C. and Boston, and spent a few weeks exploring Miami/Miami beach once. Haven't been out of my time zone before though, always been somewhere on the east coast. But, unlike you and most people, I have a brilliant intuition and spend a lot of time absorbing information. Looking at data and listening to humans from all walks of life all over the world, in both personal accounts and academic works, enables people like me to accurately say it's people like you who have no idea how little you actually know.
n/a PM_ME_RAREST_PEPES 2017-04-27
The fact that you think a trip to Florida and being familiar with a few upstate counties is noteworthy just sorta proves my point. Whatever intuition you think you may possess clearly doesn't extend inward, or you'd understand that chatting with Austrian bronies won't cure you of your small pond syndrome.
n/a DankrudeSandstorm 2017-04-27
While I may not personally believe that you're one of the smartest people in the world, I still enjoyed learning about the whole air conditioning story and reading your comments. Keep doing you.
n/a ComedicSans 2017-04-27
You're not that bright, tbh. Dunning-Kruger up the wazoo.
n/a DarqwoIf 2017-04-27
[citation needed]
n/a uniqueguy263 2017-04-27
We're completely on their side here too.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I dunno if I am. I didn't read the whole thread, just the main post and the top comment. The top comment seemed to just assume the principal was doing it to get the kid out of trouble? In which case why tf would the kid have made the post? It lost my interest around there
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Because he's a mini you, and therefore retarded enough to not realize how dumb he's being.
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-04-27
/r/legaladvice used to give solid advice like:
or
or
Of course, none of those answers were very much fun, so the amateurs got into the game and it became /r/JudgeAStranger.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Sounds like a very plausible turn of events. Were you a regular in the good days?
n/a crippled_bastard 2017-04-27
Darq. I really want you to listen to me. I'm going to joke throughout this, but I really want you to hear me and this message.
I was at a bar, in a small college town in Tennessee. Someone was talking about this delusional guy on Reddit, who thought he was the smartest person on Earth. I immediately said "It's either Darqwolf, or HStark"
Right on the fucking nose. You are famous for all the wrong things in dive bars in Tennessee. Let that sink in.
Your IQ means you have an ability to learn complex stuff in less time than most people. You aren't blessed with all knowledge.
You are actually a walking fucking disaster. I'm saying this with love.
Oh sure, I laughed along with the rest as you Mr. Magooed your life through one disaster to the next.
Now this is getting sad.
A high IQ doesn't mean you're destined for greatness. A lot of people with high IQ's find something they're really good at and plug away until they become masters at their craft.
I think you could find a lot of peace by finding something you like, one specific thing, and just learn it. Humble yourself before people who have a lot to teach you. Learn from them. And do whatever it is better. Not revolutionary. Not godlike. Just stand on the shoulders of giants, and help the next guy up the ladder.
That's how we evolve as a species.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Dude, I mildly want you to listen to me. I'm not going to joke throughout this comment, but I really truly do want you to hear me and this message.
People as smart as me don't need to be told a high IQ doesn't destine us for greatness. You'd have to be retarded to think it does. Part of intelligence is basic reasoning ability, and it doesn't take much of that to realize that since diseases and mental health and luck in general exist, no particular trait guarantees success, and intelligence doesn't even come close. Even an average-intelligence person can easily figure this out.
The thing is, an average-intelligence person would also know how easy this is to figure out. They wouldn't think an intelligent person needs it explained to them. As soon as you say it, I'd normally stop reading your comment, because you have to be so stupid to think it could possibly need to be said, I can safely assume there's not going to be a surprisingly intelligent argument contained later in the text. In this case, you opened by pleading for me to read the whole thing, so I did.
And it continued to be just as pointless. How would I find "peace" from continuing to learn stuff? I'm legitimately trying to start a multi-billion-dollar company, change the nature of the economy and world, end war, slavery, and hunger, all in time for my Presidential election in 2036. And that's just the easy stuff, the warm-up exercise before the real sport, seriously, because until then I'm facing all these things on my own terms, having had time to think about them and attacking them after determining whether and how it could be done. As President I'll be having to solve new problems, probably ones I can barely imagine right now, probably involving technologies I barely understand, plus problems I'm already aware of and will simply have to handle as I go because they can't be planned for (like how do I fix the deep state? How do I ensure no information is being hid from the White House? That single example will be a bigger challenge than anything I have to face before I'm President). All of this means there's little to no peace in knowledge or skills for me. I have to learn constantly, and I do, whether it's from independent study or "humbling myself" before a master. This learning won't bring me peace, the goal of most of it is to prepare me for the war.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Because lots of people fail, and you'll fail like you've failed in everything else because you don't fucking take the time or humility to learn stuff, instead assuming you're smarter than the people who did the work.
This is exactly what he's talking about, you don't know about any of this stuff to do anything to affect it, you just assume you do.
So have people much smarter and who have done much more work than you. Assuming you can think through the problems won't help if you won't actually put in the work (inb4 "I'm really serious and I've already started*")
*I've googled the problem.
Holy shit, this can't be real
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Sucks when you can't come up with a reasonable argument huh?
(Inb4 "NUH UH, I can think of an argument, you're just too dumb to understand it, and it's the best argument ever and everyone loves it")
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
It's not a matter of being too dumb to understand, it's a matter of just not believing it. It'd go
"Actually I spend lots of time every day learning shit and I'm perfectly humble about it"
"HAHA NO P.S. UR MOM"
because you're just being contrarian because your life sucks and you've got nothing better to do
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
And then I'd say "That's quite possibly the worst lie you've ever told and that's saying something from Mr. Calls-Chad-A-Serial-Rapist"
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
So "HAHA NO P.S. THAT COURT CASE" lmao
You're just denying everything I say and cycling through the same set of shit dude. You've got like, almost none of my attention left. Make this conversation more interesting if you're so desperate to talk to me
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I really doubt that, you are pathetically needy in terms of attention. You wouldn't have argued functionally the entirety of the people in this thread if you weren't. So let's just keep having fun.
You're just so cute when you pretend you have standards.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Nah, you really are running low on my attention. I'm not even replying to half your comments
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I seriously bet that you'll keep this going for as long as I bother to give you my attention, both because you can't stand being only acknowledged by your mother and because you seemingly have a pathological need to have the last word (to justify to yourself that you won the argument)
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I'd probably keep this going for as long as you continued it, but I'm acknowledged by lot of people and could go get attention from others on the internet any time, so it's not for attention, and I don't have a pathological need to have the last word. I just tend to reply to things. I wonder if you can comprehend it being that simple and your reply below this is just pretending to think it's some crazy attention-starved shit, or if you really are too deep into this delusion to imagine the idea of someone who just doesn't like ignoring stuff.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
That's what I just said and why you're still here.
You just said you could let it go because you have others to go for attention and acknowledgement.
Then stop replying.
You can't be this stupid, you just can't be. It's like looking in a mirror and saying the figure in it needs to work out, but they won't admit it because they're jealous of you hot body.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
No I didn't? My comment isn't even edited, you're just making shit up now. I probably can't let it go, like I said, it's hard for me to ignore things especially if they're addressing me.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I wonder if those two halves of the sentence were connected.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Do you not understand how they were connected..? Like.. you really can't follow this simple conversation? You asserted I wouldn't drop it because I need attention. I was pointing out how obviously, a need for attention wouldn't stop me from dropping it, since I can get attention any time. How is that too complicated for you to grasp...
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Wow. Okay, so it's right in front of your face and you can't see it. Amazing.
You have a need for attention and you admitted it, that's what I was saying. Then you denied it. Stop trying to pull your narcissistic sociopath shit.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
I don't though, so I can't have admitted it. You're crazy af
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Pick one.
Also: stop gaslighting you narcisstic sociopath
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
This has to be fake
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Gaslighting/insults/namecalling, typical sociopathic narcissist behavior.
n/a Zen1 2017-04-27
More than you know…
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-04-27
This caught my attention while falling down the rabbit hole of some user's comment string. There's a lot of New-Age drivel in it, and it's obviously meant for the RBN crowd to slurp up...
But boy-howdy if this kid doesn't hit points 2 through 9 right on the button.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Damn, that's him to a T.
/u/Hstark should really get some fucking help for his problems.
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-04-27
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a randomthrowawaiii 2017-04-27
He got so much worse
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
It's just magical isn't it?
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-04-27
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
This is my proudest moment.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
I'm just fucking glad I didn't have Facebook when I was young and a dick.
n/a giroth 2017-04-27
/u/Edwardthecomputerguy, I'm on your side.
You peacefully left class for the transgression of wearing paperclips on your ears, and followed instructions from then on. The principal viciously and sneakily suspended you, simply because he felt you were challenging his masculinity.
We have some excellent lawyers in this sub, and we could also possibly setup a GoFundMe. Tell us your side of the story, and fuck the pretend lawyers at /r/legaladvice.
n/a Deutschbag_ 2017-04-27
I dig your mojo.
n/a giroth 2017-04-27
Lol thanks, I have you at +7 so must be mutual
n/a Cephaliarch 2017-04-27
It's just another example of every day ageism too. The First Amendment was meant to cover freedom of expression, and that includes nose piercings. The school is actually violating your Miranda rights to begin with by forcing you to take them off, and not only that, but it's pretty homophobic for them to do so considering the rich quality of piercings in the queer community.
n/a giroth 2017-04-27
Am I hearing this right? We might be talking about going all the way to the Supreme Court?
n/a Eternal_Mr_Bones 2017-04-27
President will probably issue a pardon.
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-04-27
this is a perfect example of the patriarchy in action.
/u/Edwardthecomputerguy would make a great trans woman.
n/a irishmickguard 2017-04-27
Did you just assume their snowflake state?
n/a TSwizzlesNipples 2017-04-27
Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?
n/a Bureaucrat-72 2017-04-27
Totally not grooming a middle schooler.
n/a xgenoriginal 2017-04-27
When I was in middle school i could have used some better grooming.
n/a LaoED 2017-04-27
stfu lmfao
n/a Dgenmedia 2017-04-27
/u/Edwardthecomputerguy
I'm with you, especially against anyone who actually thinks a suspension is deserved for making a juvenile 420 joke
n/a thirdegree 2017-04-27
In none of those states is it legal for 13 year olds tho
n/a glmox 2017-04-27
just another example of the vicious scourge of ageism ravaging our fair country
n/a newcomer_ts 2017-04-27
Trump is offended.
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Trump retroactively is right about everything he was wrong about. At least in his own mind.
n/a GARBAGE_MACHINE 2017-04-27
DAE TRUMP????
n/a zester90 2017-04-27
Getting rid corporal punishment and crotchety old nuns in schools was a mistake.
n/a jmdg007 2017-04-27
My school still has nun(s), they kinda don't do anything though
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
they should get off their asses and hit you then
n/a Eternal_Mr_Bones 2017-04-27
Stop projecting your fetish unto others.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
Shut the fuck up /u/Eternal_Mr_Bones!
/u/riemann1413 what happened next?
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
then they put you in the naughty closet
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
Yes of course, then what?
n/a riemann1413 2017-04-27
they start cleansing you of sin, starting with the anus
n/a Tetizeraz 2017-04-27
Wow, why are you so violent
n/a callievic 2017-04-27
My sister just finished an internship at a school where, k-12, you can be paddled, unless your parents object. The list of parents who object is only about 12 names long. I tend fairly liberal, but I'm a high school teacher myself. Corporal punishment works. The only major problems are the kids whose parents think they're incapable of ever doing anything wrong.
n/a SuchSpookySkeltal 2017-04-27
Vice Principal seems like a decent dude, he must be used to fuckwits like OP.
n/a amityville 2017-04-27
Poor guy. Imagine dealing with tossers like this on an everyday basis.
n/a strathmeyer 2017-04-27
You can't start out mentioning illegal stuff and then fail to mention any illegal stuff. 3/10 fails to deliver.
n/a incisorcist 2017-04-27
/u/Edwardthecomputerguy I think you need to begin using heroin out of spite. This will teach those adults what's what.
n/a HULK_HOGAN_FASCISM 2017-04-27
As usual, /r/legaladvice filled with retards, but luckily there was one soul who was clearly top of the class.
Wow what a wonderful, cogent response /u/DiaboliAdvocatus. I expect nothing less from someone with such a brave username. So I figured; hey, what other nuggets of golden wisdom does this brave gentleman have to share?
Ah okay....hmmm. Well maybe being a weeb degenerate isn't a fatal fla-
Lmao, gas yourself retard.
AYYY WEW LAD
n/a lesboautisticweeabo 2017-04-27
/u/Edwardthecomputerguy
If the school hasn't taught you shit, then you can sue them for misusing Tax money!
n/a takaci 2017-04-27
uh this is a repost right?
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
Don't think so, it was just a bit more than a week ago
n/a takaci 2017-04-27
Think I saw it on SRD...
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-04-27
I'm neither a brigader nor have a vagina so I wouldn't know
n/a MG87 2017-04-27
/r/Iamverysmart
n/a nonplussed__ 2017-04-27
this kid might be the best example of that sub's target demo i've ever seen
of cooooooouuuuuurse i know how to program in c++, i am 12 years old
n/a I_FIND_RACISM_FUNNY 2017-04-27
Typical mayo
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-27
The proper term is "Aioli-America"
n/a Pyrepenol 2017-04-27
i like th e part where he wrote 420 on teh chalk board and then pretends it dont mean nuffin
what a smooth operator
n/a Mabans 2017-04-27
I'm not seeing alot of people defending this kid.
n/a therejectethan 2017-04-27
'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of some phony educational administrator 's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my own intelligence'- Edwardthecomputerguy, Professional Quote Maker
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-04-27
Oh my goodness, it's like the larval form of a sovereign citizen.
n/a HStark 2017-04-27
Makes sense. I remember that back when I was 15 and thought my girlfriend wanted to get away from her parents and be with me, I went to /r/legaladvice to discuss the idea of emancipating her through marriage, and while I disagreed with/hated them for shooting it down, I could still see where they were coming from and why from a professional stranger's standpoint I didn't look as smart as I am. It frustrated me, but at least it was normal. My more recent venture into there felt more like a sheer descent into la-la land with how people responded. No semblance of normalcy or understandable professional perspective