Law Message Board

Welcome to 587 Message Board! You've found a message board that's dedicated to hosting conversations about Law. Users can have conversations about Law and almost anything else. Our anonymous message board receives over 5,000 posts every day from its thousands of users. Join the action at our main message board.
      NURSING SCHOOLS throughout the UNITED STATES, CANADA, and the UNITED KINGDOM have asked me to come to their UNIVERSITIES and address both their FACULTY MEMBERS, and STUDENTS on BEST MEDICAL PRACTICES, PATIENT RIGHTS, and related ETHICAL ISSUES!

      If you would like me to do a PRESENTATION for your SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, or MEDICAL GROUP, you can SIGN UP on our MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FACEBOOK PAGE:, or simply call our HOTLINE at (504) 231-3056

  • x
    • We the people ask SCOTUS to Review 9th Circuit Decision on California's Anti-Gun Waiting Period Laws.
      On April 4, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc (by the "full court") in the case of Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier "pepperbelly" Becerra (formerly captioned Silvester v. Kamala "Willy Brown's fuckbag" Harris), a federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the State of California's irrational waiting period laws imposed on law-abiding existing gun owners and people licensed to carry handguns in public by their sheriff or police chief.

      In its decision to ignore the trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review, and now in its refusal to correct the 3-judge panel decision's manifest errors in all regards, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court's precedent and protecting Second Amendment rights from unconstitutional, burdensome, and irrational laws.

      Given its record here and in previous cases like Peruta v. San Diego, the Ninth Circuit's interest in en banc re-hearings is apparently limited to only those cases in which the 3-judge panel decision comes down on the side of individual liberty and Second Amendment rights, and then only so that it can reverse those pro-freedom decisions.

      We maintain that the Ninth Circuit's panel opinion was patently wrong as a matter of law. Not only did the panel incorrectly decide the Second Amendment issues in favor of the State of California, but in doing so it ignored important legal rules that govern the review of a lower court's judgment after a trial.

      By refusing to correct the panel's decision here, the Ninth Circuit has dared the Supreme Court to overturn them or bind tens of millions of law-abiding people to the tyrannies imposed on them and their right to keep and bear arms by the State of California and other similarly-hostile governments.

    • .
    • 0
    • 149
    • > + 04/07/2017 12:55 PM : .
  • x
  • .
    • 2-ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who RAPED 12-year old AMERICAN GIRL, will be DEPORTED, after they DIE!
      ... according to the MORRIS DEES, the FOUNDER and LEAD ATTORNEY for the SPLC, the SPLC will be APPEALING this CASE, because ILLEGAL ALIENS have CIVIL RIGHTS that need to be PROTECTED under the 1st AMENDMENT, (the RIGHT to RAPE STATUTE) of the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES:

  • x
Quickly find a conversation about Law by browsing our list of topics. If you look below you will see a list of message board topics about Law. If you see one you like please don't hesistate to join in!
  • Join a discussion - There is no registration required!

    • .
    • Posted 04/06/2018 11:47 AM
    • A "soldier" is simply someone being paid by the government, yes?

      Any laws regulating how the government may deploy a "soldier" should equally apply to anyone on the government payroll, yes?

      A Section 8 tenant is someone paid by the government to secure housing.

      The government tries to tell us that it is unlawful for a landlord to refuse housing to a Section 8 tenant. Yet the Third Amendment tells us that the landlord has the right to refuse housing to someone on the government payroll.

      Apparently, this theory has never been tried in court. Legal-tards, can you help me understand why?

    • .
    • Posted 03/27/2018 10:19 AM

      Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

      That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

      Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

      For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a "well regulated militia."

      Read more in thread...
    • .
    • Posted 03/01/2018 08:25 PM

      EXCLUSIVE: Former Infowars staffers at war with Alex Jones - one claiming he was teased as the
      site's 'resident Jew' while African American worker says she was 'mocked' for her skin tone
      and Jones 'grabbed her behind' saying he was 'checking the watermelons' for ripeness..

      Two former Infowars staffers have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the site's founder Alex Jones
      Rob Jacobson, who is Jewish, alleges Jones bullied, ridiculed and humiliated him
      Jones joked with staff who called Jacobson 'The Jewish Individual', 'The Resident Jew' and shouted 'Yacobson' across the office, Jacobson claims in his complaint
      Jacobson also claimed that Jones called him 'Beefcake' - a homophobic slur
      A second ex employee claims she suffered 'harassment and discrimination' at the hands of Jones and other senior managers at Infowars based on her race
      Former production assistant Ashley Beckford said she was subjected to sexual harassment and racial slurs by her colleagues and upper management
      She claims Jones groped her 'butt' during a 'side-hug' while 'pretending to feel sympathy' over an incident and asked 'Who wouldn't want to have a black wife?'

Tip: Hover over >> for last reply to thread preview.