What Mr. Burke did would never happen here. I was giving a shoutout so the poster would see how far the post was spread. Smileys tend to indicate that you’re not being all that serious either. Maybe you should’ve looked that up on answers instead.

Read up on history and you’d see why but i don’t have the patience to educate you.

Go find a bridge to troll, i’m out.

If anybody went off-topic it was you, claiming that your country is somehow superior to ours in terms of freedom.

And, speaking of Kristallnacht, your country has a decidedly mixed record in World War II, sometimes using its neutrality as a cover for cooperating with the Nazis, sometimes saving their victims.

FYI and FWIW (not much), I am a direct descendant of Charles (Carl) Springer, a Swede who played a role in the life of what was once the colony of “New Sweden”, now Wilmington, Delaware (the home of the next vice president).

Anyway, way to comment out of topic bla bla.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech

Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

As I understand it, the statutes that they use to act upon an individual are only given the force of law by those whom are authorized. As a human being, you are the highest power next to God (whatever or whomever you perceive that to be) and anyone who tells you otherwise is merely providing an offer for you to accept. If he created joinder between himself and his strawman/capitalized name at any point, he could be taken into custody as he’s legally consented to give authority over to the bench/bank/judge. If this was a defacto court, he could have stated that he was the court’s administrator and any orders passed by the judge would be subject to a bill.

I’m no lawyer and have only been educating myself through thinkfree.ca and other sources like Luke-Michel: Denis, and Mary-Elizabeth: Croft, for a year or so. I’m intensely interested in how this verdict was legally passed and if my deconstruction was incorrect in any way.

I know that as soon as he sat down, he gave the judge the power he needed to arrest him, especially as he sat while he was claiming protest and duress. The judge clearly abused the faith given to him, though it was not unlawful, he is just a bully.

I see it like music copyrights. You can do a cover of a song without permission and it’s lawful as long as you pay the royalty. But you can’t take a sample of the sound recording and use that without permission.

I believe this case would be completely different with allodial title or land patent. I think Keene should check up on this.