Where were these teachers when I was in school?

[PeytonMooning]

https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/...ys-dad-busted-for-allowing-relationship-docs/

Clifton-Carmack — a recently divorced mother of two — would often wear “tight or low-cut shirts” to show off her “headlights” and “tight leggings that ‘showed off her camel toe,’” according to court documents.

The witness told investigators the victim was the reason “her divorce was pushed through” and that “Hailey had wanted a divorce due to her husband only wanting to ‘do butt stuff,'” the court document revealed.

 

[sanction]

https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/...ys-dad-busted-for-allowing-relationship-docs/

“headlights” and “tight leggings that ‘showed off her camel toe,’”

Not guilty

“her divorce was pushed through” and that “Hailey had wanted a divorce due to her husband only wanting to ‘do butt stuff,'”

Guilty

 

[Joe Kings]

Victim of what? and Whos the victim?

 

[AgEngDawg]

Clifton-Carmack — a recently divorced mother of two — would often wear “tight or low-cut shirts” to show off her “headlights” and “tight leggings that ‘showed off her camel toe,’” according to court documents.

The witness told investigators the victim was the reason “her divorce was pushed through” and that “Hailey had wanted a divorce due to her husband only wanting to ‘do butt stuff,'” the court document revealed.

They put that in Court Documents? Who was her ex husband? Aaron Rodgers?

 

[imprimis]

Maybe the hubby is bi- and doesn't care whose asshole he does butt stuff with.

 

[s-ou-thern]

https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/...ys-dad-busted-for-allowing-relationship-docs/

Clifton-Carmack — a recently divorced mother of two — would often wear “tight or low-cut shirts” to show off her “headlights” and “tight leggings that ‘showed off her camel toe,’” according to court documents.

The witness told investigators the victim was the reason “her divorce was pushed through” and that “Hailey had wanted a divorce due to her husband only wanting to ‘do butt stuff,'” the court document revealed.

So, not as enthusiastic as this…

 

[AgEngDawg]

She comes from a blended family.

Parents have no idea what damage they are doing to their kids with these divorces.

It impacts generations!

 

[Joe King]

From the article:
A fellow student reported the alleged illicit relationship to the school’s resource officer, who immediately contacted the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department, court documents show.

The witness then met with law enforcement officials, to whom he showed photographs of his classmate with scratches on his back.

The witness alleged that the “scratches were from Hailey after the confidential victim had sex with her” in the “driveway” of the witness’s home.

Sounds as though someone might have been upset that they weren't getting some too. lol

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

That bitch should hang just like all child molesters!

 

[MVTPatriot]

From the article:
A fellow student reported the alleged illicit relationship to the school’s resource officer, who immediately contacted the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department, court documents show.

The witness then met with law enforcement officials, to whom he showed photographs of his classmate with scratches on his back.

The witness alleged that the “scratches were from Hailey after the confidential victim had sex with her” in the “driveway” of the witness’s home.

Sounds as though someone might have been upset that they weren't getting some too. lol

Snitches get stitches.

 

[TheNJNole]

https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/...ys-dad-busted-for-allowing-relationship-docs/

Clifton-Carmack — a recently divorced mother of two — would often wear “tight or low-cut shirts” to show off her “headlights” and “tight leggings that ‘showed off her camel toe,’” according to court documents.

The witness told investigators the victim was the reason “her divorce was pushed through” and that “Hailey had wanted a divorce due to her husband only wanting to ‘do butt stuff,'” the court document revealed.

Imagine at 13, knowing you're next in line to run train. Roaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Joe King]

That bitch should hang just like all child molesters!

She won't literally hang, but I think it's a given she'll be convicted.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

She won't literally hang, but I think it's a given she'll be convicted.

It’s a shame she won’t literally hang.

 

[LafesterMacintosh]

She won't literally hang, but I think it's a given she'll be convicted.

Bitch about trolls then reply to the biggest troll on this site.

 

[Joe King]

It’s a shame she won’t literally hang.

What she did isn't a capital crime.

Besides, the "kid" was prolly just a few Months from being legal. 17 is the age of consent in Missouri.

Bitch about trolls then reply to the biggest troll on this site.

Who bitched about trolls?

He's allowed to post, same as you.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

What she did isn't a capital crime.

Besides, the "kid" was prolly just a few Months from being legal. 17 is the age of consent in Missouri.


Who bitched about trolls?

He's allowed to post, same as you.

Nevertheless, it should be a capital crime.

 

[Joe King]

Nevertheless, it should be a capital crime.

And I think that the gov should conduct itself in a manner consistent with the Founders intent.

I guess neither of us gets what we want.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

And I think that the gov should conduct itself in a manner consistent with the Founders intent.

I guess neither of us gets what we want.

You do. I don’t.

The good news is we are forming a more perfect union everyday so someday people like her will get the capital punishment they deserve.

 

[Joe King]

You do. I don’t.

I'm not getting what I want. The Founders, in no way, intended for our gov to operate as it does today. The debt situation alone, if nothing else, goes completely against what they intended.

Just a few quick examples: (there are countless others)

The Founders intended for only gold and silver to be money. How's that going?

They never intended for the General Welfare Clause or the Commerce Clause or Article 6 to be abused as they have been.

The good news is we are forming a more perfect union everyday so someday people like her will get the capital punishment they deserve.

Then you should lobby your reps to add her crime to the list of Capital Offenses. That's the proper way.

However, even if you succeeded I'm thinking the Courts would overturn it.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

I'm not getting what I want. The Founders, in no way, intended for our gov to operate as it does today. The debt situation alone, if nothing else, goes completely against what they intended.

Just a few quick examples: (there are countless others)

The Founders intended for only gold and silver to be money. How's that going?

They never intended for the General Welfare Clause or the Commerce Clause or Article 6 to be abused as they have been.



Then you should lobby your reps to add her crime to the list of Capital Offenses. That's the proper way.

However, even if you succeeded I'm thinking the Courts would overturn it.

You trolling every thread tonight?

 

[Joe King]

You trolling every thread tonight?

Change the subject, don't address what I wrote. lol

In no way did the Founders intend for what our gov has become.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Change the subject, don't address what I wrote. lol

In no way did the Founders intend for what our gov has become.

False. They new we would create the more perfect union we have today from the original union they gave us.

 

[Joe King]

False. They new we would create the more perfect union we have today from the original union they gave us.

No, they thought it would only last a few score of years before tyranny took over. That it lasted until March 9th 1933, was astounding.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

No, they thought it would only last a few score of years before tyranny took over. That it lasted until March 9th 1933, was astounding.

False. Your claims to the contrary don’t change that objective fact.

Its like men not being able to have babies. No matter how much someone says otherwise it’s still an objective fact.

 

[Joe King]

False. Your claims to the contrary don’t change that objective fact.

Its like men not being able to have babies. No matter how much someone says otherwise it’s still an objective fact.

No, it's true. You just don't know history well enough.


"I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years."
-George Washington at the end of the Constitutional Convention


Strikingly, the founders themselves were far less confident in what they had wrought, particularly by the end of their lives. In fact, most of them—including former President George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, former President John Adams, and former President Thomas Jefferson—came to deem America’s constitutional experiment an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation.

Rasmussen discusses the founding fathers’ concern for America’s future

A vividly written account of a chapter of American history that will change the way that you look at the Constitution and the U.S.

www.maxwell.syr.edu

....the great sense of hope that America’s founders felt at the new government’s birth, but it is a striking fact that almost none of them carried that optimism to their graves. Franklin survived to see the government formed by the Constitution in action for only a single year, but most of the founders who lived into the nineteenth century – or even to the dawn of the new century, like Washington – came to feel deep anxiety, disappointment, and even despair about the government and the nation that they had helped to create.

Why America’s Founders Came to Fear for the Country’s Future - The John Adams Institute

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered one last time in what is now Independence Hall in Philadelphia in order to sign the charter that they had spent the past four months crafting. As the last of the thirty-eight signers affixed their names to the...

www.john-adams.nl

You need to brush up on our history, Jake.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

No, it's true. You just don't know history well enough.


"I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years."
-George Washington at the end of the Constitutional Convention


Strikingly, the founders themselves were far less confident in what they had wrought, particularly by the end of their lives. In fact, most of them—including former President George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, former President John Adams, and former President Thomas Jefferson—came to deem America’s constitutional experiment an utter failure that was unlikely to last beyond their own generation.

Rasmussen discusses the founding fathers’ concern for America’s future

A vividly written account of a chapter of American history that will change the way that you look at the Constitution and the U.S.

www.maxwell.syr.edu

....the great sense of hope that America’s founders felt at the new government’s birth, but it is a striking fact that almost none of them carried that optimism to their graves. Franklin survived to see the government formed by the Constitution in action for only a single year, but most of the founders who lived into the nineteenth century – or even to the dawn of the new century, like Washington – came to feel deep anxiety, disappointment, and even despair about the government and the nation that they had helped to create.

Why America’s Founders Came to Fear for the Country’s Future - The John Adams Institute

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered one last time in what is now Independence Hall in Philadelphia in order to sign the charter that they had spent the past four months crafting. As the last of the thirty-eight signers affixed their names to the...

www.john-adams.nl

You need to brush up on our history, Jake.

Nobody is saying that The Founders opinions didn’t change over the course of their lives.

I was calling your claim to that date false. Since there is no date that what you’re claiming happened did happen.

 

[Joe King]

Nobody is saying that The Founders opinions didn’t change over the course of their lives.

Their opinions changed for the worse. As I correctly stated, most of them did not think the nation would last very long. That's a fact, Jake.

I was calling your claim to that date false. Since there is no date that what you’re claiming happened did happen.

The date of March 9th 1933? It very well did happen. They Amended the Trading With The Enemies Act on that day to include American citizens in the definition of "the enemy". That's when war powers started being used against us the People.

 

[LafesterMacintosh]

Their opinions changed for the worse. As I correctly stated, most of them did not think the nation would last very long. That's a fact, Jake.



The date of March 9th 1933? It very well did happen. They Amended the Trading With The Enemies Act on that day to include American citizens in the definition of "the enemy". That's when war powers started being used against us the People.

Trolled to oblivion

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Their opinions changed for the worse. As I correctly stated, most of them did not think the nation would last very long. That's a fact, Jake.



The date of March 9th 1933? It very well did happen. They Amended the Trading With The Enemies Act on that day to include American citizens in the definition of "the enemy". That's when war powers started being used against us the People.

It lasting longer than they thought just proves how great our more perfect union is now than then.

Slava America!

 

[Joe King]

Trolled to oblivion

I'm not posting to convince Jake. Rather, it's for anyone reading who might not have already known some of this stuff. That's why I provide quotes and links to show that I'm not just making stuff up.

It's a fact that the gov had to Amend the Trading With The Enemies Act to include you and me and all other Americans within the definition of who the enemy could be, in order to give itself the power of war over us.* Otherwise the powers granted to the potus by Congress could not have happened.

* they gave themselves the power to regulate us as they would regulate the citizens of a nation we might be at war with.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

I'm not posting to convince Jake. Rather, it's for anyone reading who might not have already known some of this stuff. That's why I provide quotes and links to show that I'm not just making stuff up.

It's a fact that the gov had to Amend the Trading With The Enemies Act to include you and me and all other Americans within the definition of who the enemy could be, in order to give itself the power of war over us.* Otherwise the powers granted to the potus by Congress could not have happened.

* they gave themselves the power to regulate us as they would regulate the citizens of a nation we might be at war with.

Spoiler: Thats all False

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter53&edition=prelim

§4302. Definitions​

The word "enemy," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this chapter—

(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.

(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.

(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term "enemy."

 

[Joe King]

Here is where the problem lies. In the Emergency Banking Act that Amended the Trading With The Enemies Act.

Act of March 9, 1933 (Emergency Banking Relief Act), Public Law 73-1, 48 STAT 1. | DocsTeach

www.docsteach.org

Notice the part where it says, "by any person". "Any person" includes you and I.

In the original Act of October 6th, 1917, it excluded US citizens from being subject to the law.


In '33, there was a bank run in progress that threatened to bring down the entire banking system. That was the "emergency" that they used to justify using powers of war against US citizens.


So as anyone with a brain can plainly see, what I posted is absolutely NOT false.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Here is where the problem lies. In the Emergency Banking Act that Amended the Trading With The Enemies Act.


View attachment 210711

Act of March 9, 1933 (Emergency Banking Relief Act), Public Law 73-1, 48 STAT 1. | DocsTeach

www.docsteach.org

Notice the part where it says, "by any person". "Any person" includes you and I.

In the original Act of October 6th, 1917, it excluded US citizens from being subject to the law.


In '33, there was a bank run in progress that threatened to bring down the entire banking system. That was the "emergency" that they used to justify using powers of war against US citizens.


So as anyone with a brain can plainly see, what I posted is absolutely NOT false.

So your problem is that the president is the chief executive?

Everything listed in that image is standard stuff to run a country. Of course the president can do those things and it’s even more true when empowered through Congress by a specific law.

 

[Joe King]

Everything listed in that image is standard stuff to run a country.

It wasn't prior to the so-called "emergency".

Of course the president can do those things and it’s even more true when empowered through Congress by a specific law.

He could not do all that stuff to US citizens, only the enemy, and then only during time of war.



They (Congress) declared an emergency, and then FDR took action against the US citizens, that during non emergency times would have been illegal for him to do.

 

[Joe King]

Of course the president can do those things and it’s even more true when empowered through Congress by a specific law.

That sentence alone, shows that you do not really understand the laws in question, at all.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

That sentence alone, shows that you do not really understand the laws in question, at all.

Another terrible troll attempt especially when talking to someone who has a law degree.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It wasn't prior to the so-called "emergency".



He could not do all that stuff to US citizens, only the enemy, and then only during time of war.



They declared an emergency, and then took action against the US citizens, that during non emergency times would have been illegal for him to do.

False. Get better troll material or read a book.

Goodness gracious

 

[Joe King]

Another terrible troll attempt especially when talking to someone who has a law degree.

Clearly if they had to use an emergency situation* to change the law so that powers previously reserved for times of war in order to close the banks and confiscate the People's money, it means that absent the emergency, those powers would not have been legal to use against US citizens.

If they were, there would have been no need to Amend the Trading with the Enemies Act. FDR coulda just done whatever he wanted to.

The Emergency Banking Act was passed in about 45 minutes time with one copy between both Houses of Congress. They ramrodded that shit through under the guise of an emergency. If it wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have wasted their time doing so.

As far as someone being a lawyer, that in no way means that you know everything about every law ever Enacted. Also, there are plenty of idiot lawyers out there.



*

National Emergencies Act​

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › National_Emergenci...



The Act empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis but imposes certain procedural formalities when invoking such powers.

See? Right there it says that emergencies allow for special powers. You know, like using powers normally reserved for war against the American People, and just because they wanted their own money back from the bank.