NY Times Magazine this weekend

[Weston White]

Weston,

'Fire bomb' are not our words. Search through this thread and find where the word 'fire' was first written.

Was it used by anybody that actually attended the trial and participed, besides the prosecution, for example the judge?

There are instances where the driver is at fault. However, it is NEVER legal or okay to place a device that is intended to ignite in a standard mail box.

Of course not, that would be a destructive device with intent (and in his case conspiracy) to cause damage and would be unlawful.

A firecracker is an explosive device. There are different levels of explosive devices. Again, whether or not there was an intent to harm anyone, placing a device that ignites in the standard mail is not a legitimate prank and I am fairly sure it is illegal.

I do not disagree, I only want to convey that, if Hendrickson and his freak-show, only intended to drop it into the mailbox, with the goal of burning up 1040 forms which had prior been dropped off inside of it as an act of protest, if that was their end goal or desire, then that entire incident has been taken completely out of context.

Though if the goal was to get it into an IRS office and catch on fire (or “explode”) while an employee was opening it, then I think Hendrickson is a total coward and should be sitting in jail rotting.

According to the article, it was addressed to the 'Tax Thieves'. Who do you think he was referring to? I am fairly certain it is a crime for individuals to destroy mail or attempt to destroy mail that is not theirs.

Exactly, as to send a message, fugitively not literally, (unless it was suppose to be actually mailed and then opened... most likely by some poor lowly paid mail room employee that has nothing to do with IRC enforcement). Do you really think the RIS would be able to properly deliver any package addressed to “The Tax Thieves”? And yes absolutely that is crime to do.

What two issues are you referring to?

1. his “bombing” conspiracy incident. 2. his books and his knowledge of Revenue Acts.

So, he hasn't committed any crimes of violence since the 80s. We do not know what he is thinking or contemplating. Regardless of whether or not he ever commits another crime of violence, what is telling is your insistence on defending his actions.

I am not defending his actions. I am being a conscience objector. I dislike him for what he did in that incident. I view Hendrickson as a coward, really now, what kind of pansy uses “devices” to get their point across, that is so chicken like and desperate (and judging how he treats his forum members, he still is). As I said before, had I known, I most likely would have ignored CtC altogether and most certainly would not have joined his forum (well part of that problem has since been rectified, lol).

[Weston White]

Goddam it. Where's the keyboard warning? I had a new Macbook.

Westy, listen man, this the wrong way to start your time here. Look, why defend a guy who placed a bomb in a mailbin? Why? What could possibly be beneficial about defending that behavior?

Don't be dumb Weston.

I am not defending his behavior, only that it has no bearing on the now and wanted to point out other facets, other ideals for consideration regarding that incident.

Just wanted to state that he could have placed a counter claim against the petitioner or some other party so long as it is relevant to the case. Think about the good Samaritan rule, though not a law per say at least not in California, so far as to provide the acting Samaritan protections from future suit. If you decide to render aid to another and you cause that person or their property harm or damage in the process or you decide that you no longer wish to render aid, guess what that person or their family if death resulted can render you culpable for those damages or losses.

It is based like this, because you took an action, you affected everybody else that was also witnessing the incident, and thereby affected their reaction; meaning that because you ran out to prevent a drowning from occurring in the ocean just off the beach, everybody else on that beach, who may have themselves ran out or were in the process of running out to render aid at the same time as you were, though because of your closer proximately they decided to stop and either observe you or carry on with their own business, your actions thereafter ultimately determine the faith of that person drowning, if you complete your rescue attempt you may likely safe them, though if you decide to change your mind and swim back to shore, you most likely have cost that person their life, even if somebody else jumps in to take over for you.

It is a similar process at work, here is an employee and due to them being presumably to some degree ill-equipped, untrained, and unprepared they performed a task not within their prescribed duties and injuries resulted not only to themselves but also to a passing citizen (or was that 2nd person also a postal employee?). Also that 2nd person could file suit against the postal employee (and/or Hendrickson) depending on how they sustained their injuries, because of the improper actions performed on the part of the postal employee.

That employee pulled out something that was burning contained within a metal structure burning and smoking and then threw it out into the public street with passer-bys in the area. You want to talk about being dumb, now that is outright dumb, a total boneheaded move.

You see something smoking and burning, here is the correct action to take, run to the nearest CO2 extinguisher or even better PKP (especially if it is a grease fire; really bad to use PKP on electronics though because it is highly corrosive) or even more effective is Halon (which becomes highly toxic after around 900-degrees Fahrenheit thereafter forming hydrogen bromide and hydrogen fluoride, depending on the formula of the Halon), though only in enclosed spaces, while doing that yell for somebody to call the fire department there is a fire, (if it an electrical fire, either cut every breaker or yell for somebody to cut the breaker and to give you the all clear when done, and never use water on electrical, period! Standby on scene for the all clear, do not begin extinguishing until the breakers have been cut, otherwise it will keep reflashing until the wires have burned themselves through), run back and begin extinguishing in a low sweeping motion.

If the fire is large, yell for others to bring in spare bottles to work the fire until it is out or the fire department arrives. If the fire is compromising the structure or working to entrap you, pull yourself and all others from the area, sealing off the area as best as possible, turning off ventilation, power, etc., prior to clearing the building, if it is permissible to do so.

[Weston White]

You are a terminal fool.

Moreover, yes that package was supposed to detonate at the IRS. The fact that you can stand here and defend injuring innocent people shows your level of ethical and moral bankruptcy.

Really, which IRS office was it to goto exactly?

I am not defending that, not at all, I am asking if that was the intention or was the intention to catch the mail on fire inside the mailbox?

Damn it! How many fricking ways do I have to word my question or is everybody being purposefully ignorant? Which it is, do you or do you not know the effing answer?

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
I am not defending his actions. I am being a conscience objector. I dislike him for what he did in that incident. I view Hendrickson as a coward, really now, what kind of pansy uses “devices” to get their point across, that is so chicken like and desperate (and judging how he treats his forum members, he still is). As I said before, had I known, I most likely would have ignored CtC altogether and most certainly would not have joined his forum (well part of that problem has since been rectified, lol).

Weston, not to further engage in parsing or even "mincing" words, an authentic "conscientious objector" has an established legal basis on which to rely.

No words minced here: Hendrickson was and is a bullsh** artist who imagined he could be the catalyst to somehow bring down what he actually feared could put him in prison if his bullsh** didn't work.

[Nikki]

What warped words

Because a postal employee didn't follow procedures according to Weston's rules, Pete's actions are mitigated.

Consider the actual law: It is a federal felony to send an explosive device through the mail.

Is there any part of that which you don't understand?

Is it no longer a crime on Pete's part because the recipient of the bomb didn't follow the official Weston protocols for dealing with it?

The entire weasel-worded argument mitigating the bombing incident is a strong parallel of the verbal gymnastics used to support tax evasion.

Weston, far from being a CtC convert, is displaying his philosophy more and more with every word he posts.

One little question for Weston: How do you reconcile your anti-government, anti-tax views with your accepting a paycheck 100% financed by taxpayer dollars? Where would you be if everyone decided to not pay their taxes? On the street-corner with a poorly scrawled cardboard sign, that's where.

[Nikki]

PS

I forgot one minor detail.

If Pete's action was just a symbolic protest, why did he go after, and receive, a sentence reduction in exchange for ratting out his fellow conspirators?

[The Operative]

Weston,

'Fire bomb' are not our words. Search through this thread and find where the word 'fire' was first written.

Was it used by anybody that actually attended the trial and participed, besides the prosecution, for example the judge?

The first time the word, 'fire' appears in this thread would have provided you the answer. Demo provided a quote from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. that called it a firebomb. You can read the decision at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -2502.html

[Weston White]

And yet Nikki's blathering continues…

Most of your post (as usual) is schizophrenic and thus not worthy of any response, at least from me.

One little question for Weston: How do you reconcile your anti-government, anti-tax views with your accepting a paycheck 100% financed by taxpayer dollars? Where would you be if everyone decided to not pay their taxes? On the street-corner with a poorly scrawled cardboard sign, that's where.


Oh a question? Speaking of which, are you always this dumb or does it only afflict you on the weekends?

Bit your tongue, for I am not ant-government nor anti-tax. Though I do believe government has become corrupt, overbearing, and oversized, I believe we do need a degree of government that is based on tradition, values, and steeped in morally sound principles. I believe taxes are needed to support government as aforementioned. I myself work for government (non-federal). I myself am a veteran, I served under that lying ass hat/total embarrassment Clinton. I myself pay some form of tax literally every passing day of my life. My pay checks are paid by local residents the federal government has nothing to do with my pay or benefits and I work for my pay by ensuring them a valuable service.

I thought you would have realized the distinction between federal, state, and local taxes. I guess I was incorrect… though me being wrong is not news to you, it is?

On the street-corner with a poorly scrawled cardboard sign, that's where.

Wrong. I would be basking in the warming and generous light of the federal government, ROFL

[Weston White]

PS

I forgot one minor detail.

If Pete's action was just a symbolic protest, why did he go after, and receive, a sentence reduction in exchange for ratting out his fellow conspirators?

If I had to guess I would say that he was a distant cousin of yours perhaps? So was I close?

[Weston White]

The first time the word, 'fire' appears in this thread would have provided you the answer. Demo provided a quote from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. that called it a firebomb. You can read the decision at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -2502.html

So it was not used until the appeal, it as not used in the actual trial? Could they not have simply made that comment in light of reading documents from the prosecution, meaning from the prosecutions own point of view, without there being any supporting facts bearing upon the appropriate use of that specific word? So as to “beef up” their allegations?

[Weston White]

Actually, scratch that I just reviewed the actual definition of a firebomb and from the description of what happened, that appears to be the correct word to use in order to describe such a device.

[The Operative]

The first time the word, 'fire' appears in this thread would have provided you the answer. Demo provided a quote from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. that called it a firebomb. You can read the decision at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -2502.html

So it was not used until the appeal, it as not used in the actual trial? Could they not have simply made that comment in light of reading documents from the prosecution, meaning from the prosecutions own point of view, without there being any supporting facts bearing upon the appropriate use of that specific word? So as to “beef up” their allegations?

No one here said it was not used until the appeal. No one here said it was not used in the actual trial. The appeals court decision was probably easier to look up. Demo quoted the appeals court decision to point out that the "bomb" injured two people. A short time later you respond with, "which you all have somehow determined to be a “fire bomb”." I simply point out that we did not "determine" the device to be a "fire bomb". In fact, other than my responses to you and the quote from the appeals court, the term "fire bomb" has not been used by anyone in this thread other than YOU.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You are a terminal fool.

Moreover, yes that package was supposed to detonate at the IRS. The fact that you can stand here and defend injuring innocent people shows your level of ethical and moral bankruptcy.

Really, which IRS office was it to goto exactly?

I am not defending that, not at all, I am asking if that was the intention or was the intention to catch the mail on fire inside the mailbox?

Damn it! How many fricking ways do I have to word my question or is everybody being purposefully ignorant? Which it is, do you or do you not know the effing answer?

Oh, for crying out loud Weston! You really are a terminal fool!

Does it really frickin' matter which IRS office it was supposed to go to? So by your reasoning if it went to the California office instead of the New Hampshire office that would make it all right?

What the $@#* are you trying to get at?

The intention was clearly not to explode at the post office. It was addressed to the IRS (or, as Pete put it "The Tax Thieves"). Again, who else was Pete referring to?

Good lord, Weston...

[notorial dissent]

The facts of the matter are, that Weston, like Pete, is not in the least interested in the truth or reality of the situation, rather, they are both looking for ways to twist reality to suit their own self serving-in Pete’s case-he's in it for the money, or just plain ignorant-in Weston’s, views of the world. Pete is first and foremost a hypocrite and a liar since I do not believe for a moment that he actually believes the nonsense he has produced. His ego requires that he be the great teacher and guru when he is in fact, nothing more than a petty, and I do mean very petty, and unimaginative con man. He never has and never will amount to anything other than a pathetic predator, praying on the truly dim and bewildered. Weston may actually believe most of what he spouts, but from what I have seen him post, he has not the intelligence or curiosity to actually look at the things he professes to be facts to find that they are just so much dross, and in fact he does not want to look. That and his obvious inability to actually read and comprehend a simple sentence pretty well pigeon hole him as being one of the innumerable victims of life, too ignorant, and more importantly intentionally ignorant, and too self important to get out of the way of the juggernaut of reality that is bearing down on him and will ultimately crush him into so much more effluvia of another wasted life. Mainly he is looking for an audience to pay heed to his imagined brilliance, and which he has now lost over at LH. The truly funny thing is that he doesn't get it that everyone sees through him in the first 30 seconds, but then I guess when you are desperate for attention, even abuse and derision will do.

[Gregg]

As far as the injured parties are concerned, I am pretty sure they had fire extinguishers back in the 1980's, I could be wrong though. What that employee did was out of some combination of stupidity and poor training.

Or just maybe, he saw someone put something with a fuse, smoking, into a mail box, and maybe, just maybe, Pete and his buddies didn't tell him it was a harmless prank, and maybe he was even trying to prevent what he could have reasonably thought was a potentially dangerous, or even fatal situation. His job was to deliver the mail, I can reasonably guess that he also feels some obligation to protect the mail of the other few thousand people who put their mail into the box before the thing that detonated was put in. And I'm sorry, calling a smoke bomb looks to me like after the fact spin control when they got caught, I have never known of smoke bombs, or as I have seen it called, a "harmless smoke bomb" detonate with enough force to injure two people.
The way I see it, if it explodes, it meets my definition of "Bomb: not smoke" and when you get caught putting one in a mail box (hell, putting a peanut butter sandwich in a mail box could be considered a felony, they're a little touchy about the mail in general) you have damn few excuses, especially when it blows up.

[Weston White]

No one here said it was not used until the appeal. No one here said it was not used in the actual trial. The appeals court decision was probably easier to look up. Demo quoted the appeals court decision to point out that the "bomb" injured two people. A short time later you respond with, "which you all have somehow determined to be a “fire bomb”." I simply point out that we did not "determine" the device to be a "fire bomb". In fact, other than my responses to you and the quote from the appeals court, the term "fire bomb" has not been used by anyone in this thread other than YOU.

But that is the only place that you say that is was used at, thus everything else it ruled out. You all have mentioned that in prior posts I have read. And no see page 2, it was included within somebody post a quote, thus they used that word to aid in the message they were conveying within their own post.

[Weston White]

The facts of the matter are, that Weston, like Pete, is not in the least interested in the truth or reality of the situation, rather, they are both looking for ways to twist reality to suit their own self serving-in Pete’s case-he's in it for the money, or just plain ignorant-in Weston’s, views of the world. Pete is first and foremost a hypocrite and a liar since I do not believe for a moment that he actually believes the nonsense he has produced. His ego requires that he be the great teacher and guru when he is in fact, nothing more than a petty, and I do mean very petty, and unimaginative con man. He never has and never will amount to anything other than a pathetic predator, praying on the truly dim and bewildered. Weston may actually believe most of what he spouts, but from what I have seen him post, he has not the intelligence or curiosity to actually look at the things he professes to be facts to find that they are just so much dross, and in fact he does not want to look. That and his obvious inability to actually read and comprehend a simple sentence pretty well pigeon hole him as being one of the innumerable victims of life, too ignorant, and more importantly intentionally ignorant, and too self important to get out of the way of the juggernaut of reality that is bearing down on him and will ultimately crush him into so much more effluvia of another wasted life. Mainly he is looking for an audience to pay heed to his imagined brilliance, and which he has now lost over at LH. The truly funny thing is that he doesn't get it that everyone sees through him in the first 30 seconds, but then I guess when you are desperate for attention, even abuse and derision will do.

You want to talk to me about intelligence? Meanwhile you post in medium blue on a pasty yellow background? Meanwhile you have no concept of writing paragraphs?

Indeed, you are a fool that deserves no response from me.

[grixit]

Wow, from welcoming Weston and hoping to see him emerge from his delusions to putting him in my ignore file as a hopeless case in under 48 hours. It's a new record!

[Weston White]

Wow, from welcoming Weston and hoping to see him emerge from his delusions to putting him in my ignore file as a hopeless case in under 48 hours. It's a new record!

Wonderful, it has been fun, at any rate.

[cynicalflyer]

Though Hendrickson could also counter sue the Postal Service for improperly training and equipping their employees for such situations.

Moron.

I have to agree.

Sorry Weston, but a bomber (smoke, fire or otherwise) has no cause of action against a victim because of the victim's actions.

To borrow a legal phrase, you take your victim as you find them. If the person is an explosives expert or the average postal worker or a 6 year old. To somehow blame the victim is nonsense on stilts. To somehow claim the PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME could sue the victim all the more so.