Clarkson Enjoined

Post by **grixit** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:57 pm

Two questions:

1. Did he wear his cape at the ceremony?

2. Did her wedding vows include "love honor and cherish any stray bum, psycho, prophet, or presidential candidate that my husband may choose to install on the living room couch"?

Weathervane · Post by **Weathervane** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:50 pm

Wait a minute...is that Gene in drag?

Post by **LPC** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:17 pm

News to me: Not only was Clarkson disbarred, but in 2004 he was found in criminal contempt for continuing to practice law and was sentenced to six months in prison (suspended for five years upon certain conditions). See http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinion ... orderNo=94

Post by **LPC** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:28 am

webhick wrote:Look at the top of her hair, and the top of his right shoulder - notice the white glow indicative of alternative residual background? And the lighting on the two of them doesn't quite fit the background lighting....Was the photo of them photoshopped into another?

It really looks to me as though the photo was backlit (setting sun behind them) and the photographer (correctly) forced the flash to illuminate them in the foreground.

In other words, the person taking the picture had something more sophisticated than a Brownie, knew how to use it, and the results were respectable.

Nothing more to it than that.

Trippy · Post by **Trippy** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am

tommygun wrote:

Wait a minute...is that Gene in drag?

Goshdang ... now I have ginger ale EVERYWHERE.

KEYBOARD WARNING, PLEASE!!!

Post by **Demosthenes** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:22 pm

LPC wrote:It really looks to me as though the photo was backlit (setting sun behind them) and the photographer (correctly) forced the flash to illuminate them in the foreground.

In other words, the person taking the picture had something more sophisticated than a Brownie, knew how to use it, and the results were respectable.

Nothing more to it than that.

Besides, who is going to superimpose their wedding photo so that the bride and groom are standing in front of a single wide rather than, say, on a Caribbean beach?

. · Post by . » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:11 pm

bride and groom

600 pounds of wedded bliss.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:22 pm

. wrote:
bride and groom
600 pounds of wedded bliss.

Yeah, but imagine the amount of food at that wedding!!! They probably handed everyone their own 12 piece bucket of Fried Chicken. (Clarkson getting two buckets since he was the groom)

silversopp · Post by **silversopp** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:43 pm

I think this photo pretty much sums up the life one can expect to live being a tax protester. It should scare just about all the TPs straight.

The next time that teenaged TP comes around talking about how cool it would be to never have a bank account, only work for cash jobs, and such, show him that picture.

Post by **webhick** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:43 pm

Demosthenes wrote:
LPC wrote:It really looks to me as though the photo was backlit (setting sun behind them) and the photographer (correctly) forced the flash to illuminate them in the foreground.

In other words, the person taking the picture had something more sophisticated than a Brownie, knew how to use it, and the results were respectable.

Nothing more to it than that.
Besides, who is going to superimpose their wedding photo so that the bride and groom are standing in front of a single wide rather than, say, on a Caribbean beach?

Single-wide on a lake with a deck and decent landscaping. Perhaps his single-wide is a run down POS in the middle of a white-trash trailer park with the landscaping consisting of dead grass, beer bottles, old tires, and a rusted-out pickup with an angry ugly old mix breed dog that bites anything that moves.

Post by **The Observer** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:04 pm

. wrote:
bride and groom
600 pounds of wedded bliss.

On a more serious note, I do have questions how long such bliss will last, given Clarkson's behavior and mindset. My pessmistic side sees a situation where this woman will be controlled, browbeaten and manipulated.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:22 pm

The injunction is posted now on the front page. Interesting spin, but denying he did any of the activities the Gov. alleged means that he's got no intention of slowing down.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:35 pm

Somehow, the following doesn't seem to comply with the spirit of the injunction.

The Great One wrote:IRS/DOJ admits Clarkson effective!
Now official: PN hurts tax thieves!

Clarkson's cost to the evil tax service found incalculable and monstrous.

After five years of harassment, the IRS and the highly paid tax lawyers persuaded an otherwise good judge to enjoin Clarkson from doing those things which he did not do anyway. Since Clarkson was not engaged in these activities, he was unable to defend himself because he lacked standing or a real interest in the case.

View first page below and click here for the rest of the order.

http://www.patriotnetwork.info/

. · Post by . » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:07 pm

I didn't do nuthin'!

Quatloos!

Clarkson Enjoined

Re: re: Clarkson Enjoined

Re: re: Clarkson Enjoined