Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International

[wserra]

http://adask.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/i ... -be-right/

Hmm. Godfrey Bloom. First nice things about the well-known Tsarist forgery "Protocols", and now nice things about a guy who shows a certain fondness for the phrase "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer".

We may detect a pattern here.

[notorial dissent]

I do not have to justify myself to any of you.

And yet, here you are. Repeatedly.

You are not a minster of anything, anymore than your guru is, he, like you he is a fraud. You who pretend to speak as a minster should know that there are particularly dark and terrible things reserved for and a particularly dark place reserved for those who pretend to the office you are not eligible for.

That you even assume that the Protocols of Zion are anything but a fraud labels you as ignorant beyond words, and a racist and a bigot looking for something, anything to justify you inner vileness and hate. So far you are not doing to well in the building up your treasures in heaven department.

Lastly sweety, my judgment of you, such as it is, is that you are a liar, a fraud, a bigot, a raging hypocrite, and just generally seriously dangerously deluded. I would not willingly choose to ever be anywhere near you, nor would I let someone I cared about come anywhere near your for fear the hate and vileness would leach off. The judge who will look in to your heart one day and see the blackness and rot there is the one you need to fear, and all your lies, justifications, and assumptions will then mean naught.

[AndyK]

Quite an impressive diatribe.

Notorial: Why do you constantly pul your punches?

[ Now where did that 'applause' smilie go? ]

[LordEd]

You just want to pick apart everything I say so I am not going to bother. I guarantee that you will pick apart this sentence I just wrote

Ask and ye shall receive. But you do it yourself with

Now you are probably going to take this letter that I am writing right now and only quoting a few points from it because you do not have the light within you and you are in on it.

So do you want us to selectively destroy your arguments, or wholesale destroy your arguments line by line?

[notorial dissent]

Notorial: Why do you constantly pul your punches?
I was in a good humor????

[Pottapaug1938]

I do not have to justify myself to any of you. You are not my judge, there is only one. We are all equal period. You just want to pick apart everything I say so I am not going to bother. I guarantee that you will pick apart this sentence I just wrote. Pick this apart Genesis 1:29, Romans 11:29. There is your pot answer. BTW you do not get high off marijuana until it is heated. Did you know that? The time is at hand where "every knee shall bow". Even you.

blessings

Oh, yes you do -- that is, if you want us to listen to or respect anything you say. Instead, like a true moral coward, you've evaded every challenge sent your way. And, by the way, we don't particularly want to pick apart everything you say; but when you try to offer us blatant bullcr*p like you offered regarding the Protocols, it takes only minimal effort to pick your words apart.

[minister Catherine]

I do not have to justify myself to any of you.

And yet, here you are. Repeatedly.

You are not a minster of anything, anymore than your guru is, he, like you he is a fraud. You who pretend to speak as a minster should know that there are particularly dark and terrible things reserved for and a particularly dark place reserved for those who pretend to the office you are not eligible for.

That you even assume that the Protocols of Zion are anything but a fraud labels you as ignorant beyond words, and a racist and a bigot looking for something, anything to justify you inner vileness and hate. So far you are not doing to well in the building up your treasures in heaven department.

Lastly sweety, my judgment of you, such as it is, is that you are a liar, a fraud, a bigot, a raging hypocrite, and just generally seriously dangerously deluded. I would not willingly choose to ever be anywhere near you, nor would I let someone I cared about come anywhere near your for fear the hate and vileness would leach off. The judge who will look in to your heart one day and see the blackness and rot there is the one you need to fear, and all your lies, justifications, and assumptions will then mean naught.

Wow that was pretty harsh there notorial, this coming from someone who does not know me in the slightest. Please let me know where I am lying, am a fraud, a bigot, a raging hypocrite and dangerously deluded.

What I said about the Protocols is that some of what I read has come true. Am I lying?

Do you actually think that you are the one who decides if I am a minister or not?
This is my ministry. Expose the fraud. Ezekiel 33: 6-10.

From my angle what you just wrote is very hateful so you better take a look in the mirror.
Have I offended you in any way? Please explain.

I come in this room to defend myself and for no other reason. I am not looking for anything. All I see in this room is darkness and I get no good vibrations from it at all, as I said I am just here to defend myself.

I never ever said I was a professional writer nor am I an expert in grammar.
It's been 38 years since I have been out out of school.

I was brought up a Roman Catholic and since I was 5 years old I felt there was something wrong. I never understood a single word in the bible until I started to learn what I am learning now.

I was ignorant for 50 years, therefore, I have been learning this for 4 years.

Someone said to me "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" so I decided I was going to learn and I am still learning. If I said something that is wrong please correct me on it as I am still learning. I am out to hurt no one, I just want to see the corruption stopped.

I noticed your name is notorial I typed it into google and it says lawyer and the blacks law dictionary 9th edition explains it as the following: Notorial - SEE NOTARIAL, then you go to NOTARIAL and it says: An official function of a notary public, such as placing a seal on an affidavit. See NOTARY PUBLIC

Dissent (Blacks Law Dictionary 9th Edition) 1. A disagreement with a majority opinion, esp. among judges. 2. See dissenting opinion under OPINION. 3. A withholding of assent or approval. 4. The act of a surviving spouse who, as statutorily authorized in many states, refuses to devise and elects instead a statutory share. See ELECTIVE SHARE.

I said this room was full of judges, lawyers and prosecutors didn't I. So far that's all I see and of course you are all going to be against me because this is your bread and butter. It saddens me to see so many closed minds.

What you did in your quote is defamation and you as a lawyer should have known that before you wrote it, here is a description of defamation just in case you don't know what it means.

Again, Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition as that is the only one I have at the moment.

Defamation: The act of harming the reputation of another by making false statements to a third person. If the alleged defamation involves a matter of public concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statement's falsity and the defendant's fault. See LIBEL; SLANDER; DISPARAGEMENT.

That my good man or woman is exactly what you just did.

blessings and have a great day

[grixit]

Easy way to make money:

1. Take out a flyer offering a LED flashlight to the household for $5.
2. Require refusal in writing in 10 days.
3. Send out flashlights.
4. Go collect the money.

I wonder why multi-billion dollar businesses don't operate this way. So much easier than waiting for customers to come to you.

There were some people who used to do that, until a law was passed that said that anyone who received a package under such terms was allowed to treat it as a gift.

[grixit]

BTW, everyone is required to have a license and either insurance or a whopping big bond to drive a car on the public roads. There are no exceptions. No, not even for moslems, which you would know if you paid attention to all those news stories about moslem women not wanting to show their faces on their license photos.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Wow that was pretty harsh there notorial, this coming from someone who does not know me in the slightest. Please let me know where I am lying, am a fraud, a bigot, a raging hypocrite and dangerously deluded.

Let me point out a few misconception you have evidenced.

First of all, you seem to be confusing the sexual crime of necrophilia with the Bibically banned practice of necromancy. One deals with the dead flesh, the other with the deceased spirit.

Second, if you think that the day when "every knee shall bend" is soon, Catherine Edith, you clearly missed a warning spoken by the Christ to his followers regarding the day of judgement. None shall know when it comes beforehand, not even the angels or Christ Himself. That time is known to the Father alone.

Third, if you believe that the Protocols were written by a Mason and that somehow gives them authority, than you haven't a clue who the Masons are. They're a social group based around a claim to having a magic word that only affected stone, naught else. There were Horsemen and Millers at one time too, likewise oriented on corresponding words for dealing with horses and flour. Not an authority, not a priesthood nor a power behind the throne.

Fourth, that "13 families" drek mutates as readily as chain letters do. It's blatherskite, nonsense, gibberish. You've been letting someone fill your head with fiction, not with history.

Fifth, the practice of licensing drivers is for the safety of everyone on the road. The license is assurance that this person has demonstrated a working knowledge of how to operate their vehicle safely. Likewise, headlights are for the protection of pedestrians as well as drivers going the opposite way, and seatbelts are worn to keep heads from cracking against the windshield if the driver needs to slow down abroptly.

Sixth, there are warnings in the Bible about false teachers and false prophets. I would advise that you re-read them and consider how they apply in your own life, daughter of Eve.

[wserra]

What I said about the Protocols is that some of what I read has come true. Am I lying?

What do you believe has "come true"?

I just want to see the corruption stopped.

What "corruption" is that?

It saddens me to see so many closed minds.

What you call "closed", other people call "educated".

[Pottapaug1938]

"minister" Catherine said:

"What I said about the Protocols is that some of what I read has come true. Am I lying?"

I never said that you were lying. What I said, and repeat here, is that if you truly believe that "some of what [you] read has come true", then you are too idiotic, too ignorant, and too bigoted to have your assertions taken seriously. The evidence that the Protocols are a Tsarist forgery has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt; and it is only the anti-Semites of the world whose bigoted delusions make them perceive that anything in the Protocols has come true.

[Dr. Caligari]

What you did in your quote is defamation and you as a lawyer should have known that before you wrote it, here is a description of defamation just in case you don't know what it means.

True statements are not defamatory. Nor are statements of opinion.

Please point to one false statement of fact anyone here has made about you.

[Burnaby49]

What you did in your quote is defamation and you as a lawyer should have known that before you wrote it, here is a description of defamation just in case you don't know what it means.

True statements are not defamatory. Nor are statements of opinion.

Please point to one false statement of fact anyone here has made about you.

Please, the issue of whether any statments are false or defamatory is beside the point. The point is that this gave her yet another opportunity to share her dictionary with us.

op·por·tu·ni·ty
/ˌäpərˈt(y)o͞onitē/
noun: opportunity; plural noun: opportunities1. a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something. "we may see increased opportunities for export"
synonyms: chance, lucky chance, favorable time/occasion/moment, time, right set of circumstances, occasion, moment, opening, option, window (of opportunity), turn, go, possibility; More

[Arthur Rubin]

True statements are not defamatory.

Well, not exactly. Under British law (i.e., the law of England and Wales), a true statement can be defamatory, unless the speaker has proof. And, even in the US, there is such a thing as "libel per se".

[Burnaby49]

True statements are not defamatory.

Well, not exactly. Under British law (i.e., the law of England and Wales), a true statement can be defamatory, unless the speaker has proof. And, even in the US, there is such a thing as "libel per se".

Well, again not exactly. A true statement is always a defense in British law, however, quite reasonably, you have to have evidence to prove the statement is true.

[notorial dissent]

Well, if you can't actually prove what you are saying, wouldn't it essentially just be hearsay then?

[wserra]

A true statement is always a defense in British law, however, quite reasonably, you have to have evidence to prove the statement is true.

Not so reasonable in practice. In the U.S., a defamation plaintiff has to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false; in the U.K. (Canada?), a defamation defendant must prove that it's true. That may not sound like much, but - take it from a civil litigator - the burden of proof matters a good deal. Thanks to the First Amendment, of course, the U.S. protects speech in other ways as well - privilege, public figure and so forth.

[JamesVincent]

Not so reasonable in practice. In the U.S., a defamation plaintiff has to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false; in the U.K. (Canada?), a defamation defendant must prove that it's true. That may not sound like much, but - take it from a civil litigator - the burden of proof matters a good deal. Thanks to the First Amendment, of course, the U.S. protects speech in other ways as well - privilege, public figure and so forth.

Wouldn't you also have to prove how the statement or statements was "damaging" for any type of action? I mean I could wander around telling everyone that you used Pert shampoo when you really used White Rain. That would make a false statement but I see a hard time of proving any damages, unless you had a contract with Pert.

[Famspear]

Wouldn't you also have to prove how the statement or statements was "damaging" for any type of action? I mean I could wander around telling everyone that you used Pert shampoo when you really used White Rain. That would make a false statement but I see a hard time of proving any damages, unless you had a contract with Pert.

Yes. Here's a definition of "defamation":

Holding up of a person to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community... that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him.... The unprivileged publication of false statements which naturally and proximately result in injury to another [person].... A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another [person] as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.

-- Black's Law Dictionary, p. 375 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

EDIT: There is, however, a legal concept that certain statements could be "defamatory per se," meaning that the statement consists of words which by themselves -- without reference to extrinsic proof -- injure someone's reputation. See p. 376, Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979).

However, this is not an area of law with which I deal at all.