Lawyer: Client Shot Once

ctnow.com ^ | August 16, 2002 | TINA A. BROWN

[RogerFGay]

In the dead of the night on June 20, 2001, Hartford's SWAT team circled a parking lot and an elementary school rooftop, trying to spot Catalino Morales and his fugitive partner from Pennsylvania.

When the fugitives were spotted between two cars on Plainfield Street, officers yelled, "Police, get down. Police, get down to the ground."

[RogerFGay]

From the actual news article: "Morales had appeared on "America's Most Wanted" in connection with the attempted slaying of five deputy sheriffs in Pennsylvania who tried to arrest him on accusations of failing to pay child support."

It might take you a few posts to catch up. We've already covered that ground. If you read all the other posts, we won't have to repeat. The first shoot-out took place when they came to get him for allegedly being behind in his child support payments. We all know that.

[Cultural Jihad]

The only way to [make people personally responsible for their actions] is to remove government control far enough that people are able to make their own decisions and act on them without shooting a lot of policemen first.

The law only gets involved when a parent chooses to act irresponsibly by abandoning his own children.

[Cultural Jihad]

The unconstitutionality of the child support laws is not hypothetical. It is something that is known with absolute certainty.

Last week we learned that traffic stops are a 'constitutional crisis' and now you are claiming that child support laws are unconstitutional, too. And with an 'absolute certainty.' No doubt you will want to explain why you claim that said laws are treasonous and justifies shooting at law enforcement officers.

[RogerFGay]

The law only gets involved when a parent chooses to act irresponsibly by abandoning his own children.

No, see, you're completely wrong about that. Maybe I shouldn't have said that you're making up your own world. I know the "deadbeat dad" propaganda well. But I'm telling you straight out now that -- as a matter of fact -- it's not true. The law does not limit itself to involvement only in cases where a parent "chooses to act irresponsibly by abandoning his own children." That describes a small minority of the cases in which the government is oppressively and arbitrarily involved.

[RogerFGay]

Last week we learned that traffic stops are a 'constitutional crisis' and now you are claiming that child support laws are unconstitutional, too. And with an 'absolute certainty.' No doubt you will want to explain why you claim that said laws are treasonous and justifies shooting at law enforcement officers.

I can tell you're an ornery one. I'd be kind of surprised if you learned last week or any other time that traffic stops are a constitutional crisis. If you did, it has nothing to do with me. You might also - as I suggested in a previous post - read the other posts already in the thread. I already said that I don't believe police should be in the line of fire on this one.

[Cultural Jihad]

Have you ever been involved personally in a child support case? Just curious how you came to feel that child support laws and their enforcement are treasonous.

[RogerFGay]

Just curious how you came to feel that child support laws and their enforcement are treasonous.

I'm a well known international researcher and author on the subject.

[RogerFGay]

Have you ever been involved personally in a child support case? Just curious how you came to feel that child support laws and their enforcement are treasonous.

Why do you hate men, fathers, and freedom?

[Cultural Jihad]

I already said that I don't believe police should be in the line of fire on this one.

Only by virtue of the fact that you believe the laws are unconstitutional. Heck, that woman in Ohio claimed that the officer deserved to be shot, and a militia nutcase wrote a letter stating that the LEOs have no business stopping motorists who speed. So your saying they shouldn't be in the line of fire is really dissembling.

[Cultural Jihad]

Why do you hate men, fathers, and freedom?

Why do you commit libel?

[RogerFGay]

Why do you commit libel?

Oh pardon me. I should have asked; do you hate men, fathers, and freedom? What burned you so much that you're arguing so vigorously and hatefully against men, fathers, and freedom?

[Cultural Jihad]

Why do you hate men, fathers, and freedom?

Do you support the "freedom" of deadbeat dads to abandon their own children? Is it "freedom" to shirk one's personal responsibility?

[A. Pole]

Instead of investing in 3 guns, he should have payed his child support. He also should have considered getting a second job.

I wonder how much child support he will be sending from prison?

[Cultural Jihad]

... that you're arguing so vigorously and hatefully ...

Roger, I apologize if I come across that way. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from in regards to your claim that child support laws are unconstitutional. Your statement seems ludicrous from a conservative standpoint, and I just want to be clear where you are coming from.

[RogerFGay]

Only by virtue of the fact that you believe the laws are unconstitutional. Heck, that woman in Ohio claimed that the officer deserved to be shot, and a militia nutcase wrote a letter stating that the LEOs have no business stopping motorists who speed. So your saying they shouldn't be in the line of fire is really dissembling.

Someone else said in another situation that some policeman that was not involved in what we're talking about ... I wasn't in that discussion, and am not interested in trying to pick up on it. I don't even know if a women in Ohio claimed that an "officer deserved to be shot" and it doesn't interest me within the context of this discussion.

[Cultural Jihad]

I wonder how much child support he will be sending from prison?

Maybe a few hundred thousand deadbeat dads will think twice before spending their children's dental insurance on guns or drugs or that new car.

[RogerFGay]

Do you support the "freedom" of deadbeat dads to abandon their own children? Is it "freedom" to shirk one's personal responsibility?

I think it's become obvious that you're fighting mindlessly now. The shrill pitch of your rhetoric doesn't excuse the fact that you're trying to build a straw man. I've already addressed the personal responsibility issue. If you want to build an argument that you can win, perhaps you should just debate against yourself or an imaginary friend.

[A. Pole]

What is criminal is what the courts say is criminal.

What country are you from?

He is from Soviet Russia. But after Gorbachev/Yeltsin reforms he stopped to like the political system over there and he got a refugee visa by recomendation of Janet and Hillary. He was a legal consultant for government during the Waco siege.

[A. Pole]

What country are you from?

I live in the United States

We already know it. You did not answer the question.

[Cultural Jihad]

I've already addressed the personal responsibility issue.

Where? In your statement that the government ought to just shrug and wink at hungry, impoverished children, as if doing so will shame deadbeat dads into being more personally responsible? (As an aside, if you are an author making a living at formulating and communicating your thoughts, I hope you have a night job, too.)