More:
[snip]
“Right after the presentation there was a book signing. I bought two books-regular and limited edition of his “Making the Case, the Art of Persuading Judges” (the limited edition alone was $150) .
I stood at the end of the line and let everyone else go ahead of me. I figured while he is signing two books, me being the last and he is not rushed, he might have a minute to ask another question.
So, after another hour on my feet (after I stood for a couple of hours at the presentation), I gave him the books to sign and asked “Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate”.
He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.
I asked, tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio- he had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember. Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court.
I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases, were handled by those nefarious clerks, those “mahers”, that work for who knows who and the judges are clueless? I don’t know.
At the end I gave him my 164 page dossier, that I’ve sent to Holder about all the suspected criminal activity, intimidation harrassment, cyber crime surrounding me and officer Easterling. Scalia seemed to be interested and started reading the first page, he put it next to him, but then the secret service agent grabbed it.
What could I do at theis point? Wrestle with the secret service? Clearly that wasn’t the time and the place to show of my black belt Tae kwon Do skills. I just shut up and left. There was nothing else I could do at that meeting.”
More here: http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/10/meeting-with-scalia-and-coordinated-cyber-attack.aspx
>What could I do at this point? Wrestle with the secret service?
Yes! As a human being you have the right to seek and petition the Government for redress, this means you have the right to put your case before the relevant person, AND also this is the reason you have, undeniably, the right to be tried by a jury of your peers.
(Of course, the modern methods of “jury selection” are, IMO, utterly unconstitutional and promote injustice. “By your peers” does not mean that your jury is all atheists if you are, or all Islamic if you are, or all hispanic if you are. Etc.)