The Right to Lie

The right to lie has been established by CSI-NY. Last night's
(5/07/08) show lied about atropine. They showed atropine as a poison
that burned the mouth and lips, and knocked its victim out as though it
were cyanide.
Furthermore, the fatal atropine was delivered by a kiss, and the
girl had counteracted the atropine, for her own protection, with calabar
bean, which is a paralyzer like the real atropine, and therefore it
wouldn't have have counteracted the atropine, but rather it would have
"enabled" it.
Some of us schizophrenics were given the real atropine in the form
of Cogentin as a muscular relaxant to counteract the muscle cramping
caused by phenothiazines, primitive dopamine blockers.
Atropine overdose would have caused a creeping paralysis, a
gradually increasing muscular weakness. The day before, I coincidently
had more atropine put in my eyes for an eye test, to dialate the pupils,
than could ever be delivered by a kiss.
It looks like toxicology is still a big top secret classified
subject. In 1981 I received an ad for a book on toxicology; but, I would
have had to sign that I was quaified to receive the book under pain of
perjury. And, the book cost $399.98. In 1985 I bought the same book for
8 Lei ($2) in Cluj, Romania.
Why was toxicology an open subject under Ceaucescu's strict
Communist dictatorship? Suicide was alright there! It seems that the
suppression of toxicological knowledge is simply to prevent easy
suicides here behind the Plastic Curtain. Here, where suffering is a
sacrament, THEY would rather exterminate us with an inflation caused
famine than allow euthanasia.
Just as sure as Hollywood gets their people elected governors and
Presidents, it has established lying to be an inalienable First
Amendment right, just as sure as if it were established by our federal
Supreme Court.
John Wayne and this Senise character are war hero veterans, and it
looks like Joey Zaza is joining in. When is the next actor in the White
House going to give them all their Congressional Medals of Honor?

Years ago, the driver's license application in California required one to
indicate insanity, or not. I figured, if I said "no," they would have to
prove I was insane to prove I was lying. However, if they proved I was
insane, they could not hold me accountable for saying "No!"

Catch 22 for the DMV.

Quiet Neighbor wrote:
QN>Years ago, the driver's license application in California required one to
QN>indicate insanity, or not. I figured, if I said "no," they would have to
QN>prove I was insane to prove I was lying. However, if they proved I was
QN>insane, they could not hold me accountable for saying "No!"
QN>Catch 22 for the DMV.

Insanity is a declaration from the legal system. Only a judge can declare
you insane. It's like if the question was whether or not you are a felon.
But, I can see your point about the quandary at the DMV. They can't hold
you responsible for lying.

<chesucat twitches>

--

To program anything that is programmable is an obsession!

By putting me back under guaridanship the VA has admitted that it
was responsible for me losing my inheritance and home by allowing the
Spiritualist Church cult to fraudulently remove my original guardianship
in probate court and ripping me off of everything of monetary value.
If the VA had said, yes, that decision was right, you are competent, I
couldn't hold the claim that they are responsible for my great loss and
that the system therefore owes me full restitution.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code my compliance by signature is
required. Even if I signed anything complying to a guardianship, if that
signature were valid, I would be competent, and, if that signature were
invalid it would be worthless so that it would be null and void. It
wouldn't work.
How is it that the government comes up with these Catch 22's. The
original movie "Catch 22" was in the Armed Forces, the government. Ain't
it the way.


http://community.webtv.net/mpereira/TheSecretsofthe

It sounds like a tort by the church, but there may be a statute of
limitations, and most lawyers will not represent a scheezer.

A representative of the organization for disable people, I forget
the exact name of the organization, it's the big one, told me about ten
years ago that there is no statute of limitation on abuses against
disabled people.
It is difficult to find a lawyer to work for you free against the
government, but, you can sue any subcontracted private corporations
involved. You can sue any private law firms that violate your rights.

They have the right to lie,
so do we, better learn quick.

We need to for a secret society as they have,
we could compete well, if we learnt to co-operate.

BTW look into falun gong.