"I'm amazed your account still has enough karma to post above 0."

You shouldn't be, I don't lie like you do.

"I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

Because doing so WILL BRING FORTH THE APOCALYPSE!!!

They've somehow done the IMPOSSIBLE!

Or maybe you should have said "an appeal has no legal basis for success" or something that accurately describes the situation?

Why haven't you taught them about the dangers of being an imbecile and posting on the internet, based on your extensive personal expertise doing both?

"While they might not be 100% accurate in all situations breath analyzers are still considered to be mostly accurate "

Stop making statments that you can't support with facts, I caught you lying the last time you tried that shit.

The you ran and hid like a bitch.

"Of course it doesn't; it doesn't need to! The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property...." It doesn't say "citizen," it says "person!" That means it applies to every person! Period! How much more fucking clear does it have to be?!"

What a colossally stupid attempt at a point.

Guess what dumbass, it discusses jurisdiction too. If the document DOES NOT have jurisdicstion, then it's claims of what behaviors are and are not allowed by government MEAN FUCK ALL because the document itself defines its jurisdiction.

So you're wrong, mostly because you confused your opinion with valid legal theory.

"The quote you claim he made in your last paragraph is indeed false. The claim he actually made (as you quoted in your first paragraph) is unequivocally true."

I chose the claim he MADE which is "unequivocally" present in black and white.

It's not a "quote I claim he made", as HE ACTUALLY MADE IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

It's clear you have no idea what the fuck you're blathering about, and your mastery of the language sucks.

"The definition of who is a person has changed, not the rights of a person. When the country was founded, slaves were not people, and women were only barely counted as such. "

"Barely counted as suh" still means they were people, so you're mooting your own point ith your post.

Which was pretty stupid to begin with.

" The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."

Despite there being Slavery at the founding of The American Government.

Despite everyone NOT having the same rights at the founding of the American Government (women couldn't vote for example).

Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.

Now, don't presume that I disagree with the idea that equality is universal, but your claims about it being historically true in respect to the American Government are unequivocally false.

You;re aware you were definitively proven to be a lair, and have also proven every derogatory remark I've made true right.

And save the childish "you're iunsultign yourself' garbage, it's transparent.

I won, you LIED, and the best you can do now is troll me with stupid shit like "You're aware you're insulting yourself right? This is so much fun, I should probably go and get some popcorn."

Yeah yeah "I'm rubber you're glue" is next from you I'm sure.

How about instead you just STOP LYING.?

"Inalienable

You cannot take them away, citizen, non-citizen, good guy, bad guy."

You're mistaken, rights CAN be taken away, and that's not what inalienable means.

If you doubt it, look at convicted felons, and don't bitch, it's perfectly Constitutional.

You're simply wrong.

"Liberty was an inalienable right once... long ago..."

WHEN? You tell me exactly when and where Liberty was "inalienable" and I'll prove you're full of shit. Just ask the Founding Father's slaves.

Government has ALWAYS stepped on rights, this magical Freedom land you're pontificating about never existed.

" - Apple Inc. (NASDAQ)

81.70 -3.63 (-4.25%) Jan 15 12:58pm ET
Open: 80.50
High: 82.59
Low: 80.05
                                                    Volume: 39,310,466
Avg Vol: 31,577,000
Mkt Cap: 72.67B"

I'll revisit this at closing, and I'll still be right.

People like you never think someone else might be better at this than you, but I am and now you know it.

" - Apple Inc. (NASDAQ)

81.70 -3.63 (-4.25%) Jan 15 12:58pm ET
Open: 80.50
High: 82.59
Low: 80.05
                          Volume: 39,310,466
Avg Vol: 31,577,000
Mkt Cap: 72.67B"

Hmm, Looks like I was EXACTLY RIGHT.

Where's the snide comment now boy?

"captured and forwareded ALL the traffic on the network, therefore also capturing and copying YOUR conversations and emails with YOUR MOM."

My mom is dead you insensitive clod!!!

No, really, she died.

I don't give two shakes about the children.

But I strongly suspected this already. Most people who actually analyzed the situation and the LAW thought it was a strong possibility.

Unfortunately, every time I attempted to discuss the actual LAW, I (and others) were shouted down (and modded down) by the "WHARGARBLL FUCK BUSH BLAHGHGHG!!" crowd, who'd rather not have their prejudices disproven.

Things can be legal, and still be intrusive and wrong on a moral level.

Perhaps in the future, all of you who screamed "Illegal wiretaps!!!!" at the top of your lungs will take the time to listen.

PS, I think it's shitty too, but that doesn't make it illegal.