From: "Mark Sebree" 

On Mar 25, 11:19 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
> Innews:1174875625.745582.213260{at}b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> Mark Sebree  typed:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 9:28 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

> > wrote:
> >> Innews:1174851912.698044.233890{at}y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> >> Mark Sebree  typed:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 10:52 am, "John D.Wentzky"
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>> Innews:1174690060_4897{at}sp6iad.superfeed.net,
> >>>> J Young  typed:
>
> >>>>> What ever became of the Constitutionally
protected rights to free
> >>>>> speech and assembly? What about the rights of all
those babies
> >>>>> needlessly killed inside the abortion mill where
this worker earns
> >>>>> her blood money? What harm
> >>>>> did these protesters cause?
>
>
>>>>>http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007/03/22/news/nebraska/doc46015...
>
> >>>>> PAPILLION - A Sarpy County trial has begun for
seven abortion
> >>>>> opponents who gathered outside the Bellevue home
of an abortion
> >>>>> clinic worker last year.
> >>>>> The seven are Mary Adam, 70, Mary Hansen, 57,
Sharon McKee, 51,
> >>>>> Joseph Reida, 58, Stephen Zach, 64, all of Omaha;
and Sam Liberto
> >>>>> and Joe McDaniel, both 55 and of Bellevue. They
face misdemeanor
> >>>>> charges of unlawful picketing and disturbing the peace.
>
> >>>> Disrespectful pro-choice tax leeches in government,
>
> >>> Which do not exist except in your imagination.
>
> >> They are in the FCC and other agencies.
> >> They are on local cop sqauds.
> >> They are tax leeches and threats upon the liberty of the USA.
> >> They are also in the U.S. military.
> >> They are in Planned Parenthood.
> >> You seem to be allied with them, you liar.
> >> They are also in MADD.
> >> They are in NOW.
> >> They are in the NAACP.
>
> > None of these organizations are "disrespectful pro-choice tax leeches
> > in government".  Planned Parenthood, MADD, NOW, and the NAACP are all
> > private organizations and not part of the government at all.
>
> They are all affiliated with the government.

No, they are not.  Being Free Speech organizations is not government affiliation.

>
> > The US Military and the FCC and the local police departments are part of
> > the
> > government, but they are not disrespectful, pro-choice, or are they
> > tax leeches.
>
> Another lie, you lazy tax-leech pro-choice supporter.

You may be lazy and a tax-leech as well as a liar, but you well known for
being anti-choice.

There is no lie in my statement.  Your lies and evasions do nothing to show
that I am wrong and you are right.

>
> >  And not a single one of these groups or organizations is
> > a threat to liberty.
>
> Ask any person on the face of the palnet other than Mark Sebree.

I have.  I have asked plenty of people, and I have looking into the
organizations themselves.  None of them are a threat to liberty as you
claim.  In fact, they promote MORE liberties and rights for the people. 
Working to increase people's rights and liberties while doing nothing to
decrease them means that they are not a threat to liberty.

> They will agree with me and they will disagree with Mark Sebree.

Exactly backwards.  You really need to get to planet Earth sometime.

>
>
>
> >>>> as evidenced by this
> >>>> story, are committing the crime of treason against the United
> >>>> States of America.
>
> >>> There was nothing treasonous in anything mentioned in this story.
> >>> Again, that is your imagination.  Anti-choice activists made
> >>> themselves a public nuisance and trespassed on a private
> >>> individual's home.
>
> >> How did they trespass against any private home if they were on the
> >> peoples' property?
>
> > They weren't.  They were on private property.  Hers.
>
> Where did it say they were on her property?
>
> >> The government has no authority to silence speech on the peoples'
> >> property.
>
> > But they do have the authority to arrest people that are picketing in
> > an unlawful manner, as well as making a public nuisance of
> > themselves.  And those are the charges against them.
>
> I did not see any mention of them being on someone's private property.
> Besides that, who cares anyway?

You.

> It was a group of persons all over 50 years of age.

Makes no difference in the eyes of the law.

> The very type of people you hate.

Nope.

> You lazy, disrespectful coward.

I am none of the three.  You, however, fit all three adjective.

> Your days are numbered, and your allegiance to treason is doomed.

My days will last far longer than yours, and you have never provided any
evidence  that I have any "allegiance to treason".  Probably
because you do not know what the word means, and because you are lying
about me again.

However, since you snipped out that information below, I will again educate
you about what treason is.

[replace text that was snipped from the bottom of the previous post, but
pertinent here]

Here is what "treason" actually means: from Dictionary.com
1.      the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm
or
kill its sovereign.
2.      a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's
state.
3.      the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith;
treachery.

And more importantly, here is the definition in the US Code.  As in federal
law, which is the only level that can properly handle cases of
treason by definition.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html
TITLE 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, Section 2381

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or
shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any
office under the United States."

Now, prove ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS WRITTEN that I am a traitor as you
have repeatedly claimed.  Stick to the facts, and leave your opinions and
fantasies out of it.  You DO NOT define whom are and are not the enemies of
the United States.  That is defined by the government as well.  Positions
and organizations that are based on the principle of Free Speech and are
working within the laws of the USA are not enemies
of the USA, therefore claiming that I am an enemy of the USA because I
tell you the facts to counter your delusions and I do not agree with your
position is not only hubris on your part, but does not support your
position.

[end replacement]


Since you are accusing me of treason, I want you to prove it. Basically, I
am calling you a bare faced liar.  And since in this country (the USA), our
legal system is founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I
do not need to prove my innocence since that is the default state.  YOU
need to prove that I am guilty.

>
>
>
> >>>  And those things ARE against the law.
>
> >> Censoring the people on public property is treason.
>
> > No, it is not.
>
> It sure is, traitor.

No, it is not.  Censorship does not fit the definition of
"treason". There are no enemy states or organizations involved.

Now, prove your accusation that I am a traitor or be branded the liar that
you are so well known to be.

>
> > You obviously do not know what is and what is not
> > treason.
>
> Anything that goes against the Constitution is treason.

Wrong.  And you have just proven that my statement that you don't know what
is and is not treason was correct.   The definition of "treason"
has nothing to do with going against the Constitution.  If it were, you
would be the one that was more in danger of that than me.  Treason has to
do with undermining and attempting to overthrow the government to which one
owes allegiance.

What's more, you do not get to define what does and does not go against the
Constitution.  That is the job of the US Supreme Court, and to a lesser
degree, the US District Courts and State Courts.  Your opinion in the
matter is worthless since you are so ignorant of the Constitution and what
the various parts of it mean.

>
> > Try doing some of your own research and find out what it
> > actually is.  And there was no censorship involved.
>
> Stop acting like the crybaby idiot you are.
>
> [snip]

You are the only "crybaby idiot" in this thread, as you continue
to prove.  And I am not acting like you at all.  I hold myself to far
higher standards than you can imagine.

And I see that you decided to snip out the ACTUAL definition of
"treason".  Could not face the truth, as usual, I see.  Don't
worry. I have replaced that text higher in the thread so that you could
prove your baseless assertion against me using the actual standards that
define what is and is not treason,

Mark Sebree

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag