[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Deck : Black Castle

XZealot

9/1/2010 8:03:00 PM

Deck Name : Black Castle
Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
Description :
This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module


Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
------------------------------------------------------------

4x Anarch Convert 1 Caitiff:0
2x Paulo de Castille 4 ani dom pot Lasombra:4
1x Banjoko 5 DOM obt pot Lasombra:3
1x Ermenegildo, The R 5 DOM OBT pot Lasombra:4
1x Leila Monroe 4 dom obt pre Lasombra:4
1x Tabitha Fisk 4 obt pot pro Lasombra:3
1x Hester Reed 3 obt pot Lasombra:3
1x Lucy Markowitz 3 dom obt Lasombra:4


Library [90 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------

Action [25]
5x Descent into Darkness
10x Govern the Unaligned
2x Heroic Might
6x Political Struggle
2x Preternatural Strength

Action / Combat [2]
2x Steely Tenacity

Action Modifier [10]
5x Conditioning
5x Power of One

Combat [29]
3x Hell-for-Leather
9x Immortal Grapple
5x Pushing the Limit
4x Shadow Body
5x Target Vitals
3x Thrown Sewer Lid

Equipment [1]
1x Zaire River Ferry

Master [14]
4x Dominate
1x Elysian Fields
2x Fame
1x Flames of Insurrection
1x Political Hunting Ground
1x Political Seizure
1x Power Structure
1x Powerbase: Los Angeles
1x Tension in the Ranks
1x Wider View

Reaction [9]
7x Deflection
2x On the Qui Vive


Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Wed Sep 01 15:03:08 2010]
12 Answers

Wedge

9/1/2010 9:08:00 PM

0

On Sep 1, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> Deck Name : Black Castle
> Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
> Description :
> This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module
>
> Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4x Anarch Convert         1               Caitiff:0
> 2x Paulo de Castille      4  ani dom pot   Lasombra:4

> Action [25]
>   5x Descent into Darkness

>
> Master [14]
>   4x Dominate


You may not have noticed that Paulo does not have obtenebration.

Meej

9/1/2010 9:35:00 PM

0

On Sep 1, 5:07 pm, Wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Deck Name : Black Castle
> > Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
> > Description :
> > This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module
>
> > Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 4x Anarch Convert         1               Caitiff:0
> > 2x Paulo de Castille      4  ani dom pot   Lasombra:4
> > Action [25]
> >   5x Descent into Darkness
>
> > Master [14]
> >   4x Dominate
>
> You may not have noticed that Paulo does not have obtenebration.

http://sadtro...

- D.J.

XZealot

9/1/2010 11:58:00 PM

0

On Sep 1, 4:07 pm, Wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Deck Name : Black Castle
> > Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
> > Description :
> > This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module
>
> > Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 4x Anarch Convert         1               Caitiff:0
> > 2x Paulo de Castille      4  ani dom pot   Lasombra:4
> > Action [25]
> >   5x Descent into Darkness
>
> > Master [14]
> >   4x Dominate
>
> You may not have noticed that Paulo does not have obtenebration.

Dammit, but the deck seems to be doing quite well even without Paulo
being about to play descent into darkness

Wedge

9/2/2010 12:13:00 AM

0

On Sep 1, 4:57 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:07 pm, Wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Deck Name : Black Castle
> > > Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
> > > Description :
> > > This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module
>
> > > Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 4x Anarch Convert         1               Caitiff:0
> > > 2x Paulo de Castille      4  ani dom pot   Lasombra:4
> > > Action [25]
> > >   5x Descent into Darkness
>
> > > Master [14]
> > >   4x Dominate
>
> > You may not have noticed that Paulo does not have obtenebration.
>
> Dammit, but the deck seems to be doing quite well even without Paulo
> being about to play descent into darkness

Paulo better Lay Low

Robert Scythe

9/2/2010 12:37:00 AM

0

On Sep 1, 4:57 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:07 pm, Wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Deck Name : Black Castle
> > > Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
> > > Description :
> > > This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module
>
> > > Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > 4x Anarch Convert         1               Caitiff:0
> > > 2x Paulo de Castille      4  ani dom pot   Lasombra:4
> > > Action [25]
> > >   5x Descent into Darkness
>
> > > Master [14]
> > >   4x Dominate
>
> > You may not have noticed that Paulo does not have obtenebration.
>
> Dammit, but the deck seems to be doing quite well even without Paulo
> being about to play descent into darkness.

Hey, I was at my local Deck Building Shop and saw this in the bargain
bin.

XZealot

9/2/2010 2:04:00 AM

0

On Sep 1, 7:36 pm, Robert Scythe <tbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:57 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 4:07 pm, Wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 1:03 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Deck Name : Black Castle
> > > > Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
> > > > Description :
> > > > This is a Lasombra Anarch deck featuring the Paulo Bloat Module
>
> > > > Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > 4x Anarch Convert         1               Caitiff:0
> > > > 2x Paulo de Castille      4  ani dom pot   Lasombra:4
> > > > Action [25]
> > > >   5x Descent into Darkness
>
> > > > Master [14]
> > > >   4x Dominate
>
> > > You may not have noticed that Paulo does not have obtenebration.
>
> > Dammit, but the deck seems to be doing quite well even without Paulo
> > being about to play descent into darkness.
>
> Hey, I was at my local Deck Building Shop and saw this in the bargain
> bin.

I buy everything at the bargin bin.

Twice the Value,
Half the Price.

Greegor

6/15/2013 7:15:00 PM

0

On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, & <ampersand.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 01:32 PM, Greegor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 11:34 am, Topix Harlot Chris Tolles <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Violence Against Men: Militant Feminism --  Restraining Order
> >> Revolution -- Attack on the Bill of Rights -- Slouching Toward
> >> Totalitarianism
>
> >> 1.  When you get served with one of these devilish "stalking"
> >> petitions, you have no right to attorney; you'll have to hire one at
> >> $350/hr. and if you can't afford one, TS!
> >> 2.  Evidence is by the preponderance:  50% and a whiff is all the
> >> proof needed, as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" when charged
> >> with a crime.
> >> 3.  You have NO right to jury trial; the judge who serves as attorney
> >> for the "battered" woman finds the facts, or in my case, fabricates
> >> them.  They're trying to take away your right to a trial by jury!
> >> 4.  You have NO right to a transcript to rely on for an appeal to a
> >> higher court.
> >> 5.  You have NO right to cross-examine.  In my case the female judge,
> >> Julie "Damaged Goods" Kepple, refused to allow me to cross-examine.
> >> Every time I tried to ask a leading question, she would interrupt
> >> before I could utter even as much as 4 or 5 words of the question.
> >> 6.  You will be trapped in a hurricane of an uncorroborated witness
> >> lawsuit which claims DECEITFULLY to be a civil lawsuit when in fact
> >> you have been charged with a crime; typically this hermaphrodite
> >> lawsuit is a "she-said-he-said" prosecution, yes, falsely pretending
> >> to be a civil, as opposed to criminal, lawsuit.
> >> 7.  In effect you have no right to appeal  because all your appellate
> >> safeguards have been shitcanned by a 3-branch government cabal whose
> >> bible and money supply are the Violence Against Women Act.
> >> 8.  Videri quam esse -- To seem rather than to be, the new motto in my
> >> state of NC:  The state of show trials, sleazebag judges, and star
> >> chambers.
> >> 9.  In law and in application the restraining order orgy in North
> >> Carolina discriminates against the poor who have no resources to hire
> >> a court reporter or an attorney.
> >> 10.  Men are now sacrificial lambs on the altar of militant feminism;
> >> we have allowed ourselves to slouch into a police state.
> >> 11.  The conclusion in the evil syllogism sworn to by the woman (so
> >> many of them narcissistic exhibitionists and psychos like Martha
> >> Grist) is invariably the self-serving mantra, "I don't feel safe in my
> >> home."
>
> > What you describe is "administrative law".
>
> > This is strikingly similar to the "dependency court"
> > (AKA Family Court or Juvenile Court)
> > racket used by social services agencies to
> > remove children under false circumstances
> > and increase their agency funding.
>
> > You discovered that they refer to it
> > as Civil Law, which strongly implies
> > to me that you are actually dealing with
> > Administrative Law.
>
> > The game they play is that since
> > you did not lose any "Liberty Interest",
> > meaning that you did not face incarceration,
> > you were not entitled to the full protections
> > described in the Bill Of Rights portion of
> > the US Constitution.
>
> > Typically such an "Order Of Protection"
> > would also be used to snub your
> > parental rights, directly or in the hands
> > of the Child Protection agency in
> > "their" dependency administraive law court.
>
> > IF that is the case then the pretense
> > that you are not entitled to full BOR
> > "liberty interest" protection is a sham.
>
> > If the complainant is an ex or ex-wife
> > and there were no kids, then their
> > administrative end run around the
> > BOR "liberty interest" protections
> > might actually hold up.
>
> > Then it's merely a money/property matter.
>
> > Got kids?
>
> > It sounds like North Carolina has decided
> > to use an administrative court
> > Order of Protection to mark you as a
> > domestic abuser without actually
> > convicting you in a full criminal
> > court process.
>
> > It seems like a pre-emptive process.
>
> > System sucks would call it "preventive" of course.
>
> > Several years ago I spotted and seized
> > a poster from my local Social Services
> > office that asked women if their husbands
> > were in any way restricting their spending
> > they were "economically abused" and
> > suggested the "domestic abuse option".

& > big deal several minutes ago a
& > bunch of guys complained to
& > their friends. it will happen
& > again in a few more minutes

In court?

&

6/15/2013 7:28:00 PM

0

On 06/15/2013 03:14 PM, Greegor wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, & <ampersand.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2013 01:32 PM, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 11:34 am, Topix Harlot Chris Tolles <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Violence Against Men: Militant Feminism -- Restraining Order
>>>> Revolution -- Attack on the Bill of Rights -- Slouching Toward
>>>> Totalitarianism
>>
>>>> 1. When you get served with one of these devilish "stalking"
>>>> petitions, you have no right to attorney; you'll have to hire one at
>>>> $350/hr. and if you can't afford one, TS!
>>>> 2. Evidence is by the preponderance: 50% and a whiff is all the
>>>> proof needed, as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" when charged
>>>> with a crime.
>>>> 3. You have NO right to jury trial; the judge who serves as attorney
>>>> for the "battered" woman finds the facts, or in my case, fabricates
>>>> them. They're trying to take away your right to a trial by jury!
>>>> 4. You have NO right to a transcript to rely on for an appeal to a
>>>> higher court.
>>>> 5. You have NO right to cross-examine. In my case the female judge,
>>>> Julie "Damaged Goods" Kepple, refused to allow me to cross-examine.
>>>> Every time I tried to ask a leading question, she would interrupt
>>>> before I could utter even as much as 4 or 5 words of the question.
>>>> 6. You will be trapped in a hurricane of an uncorroborated witness
>>>> lawsuit which claims DECEITFULLY to be a civil lawsuit when in fact
>>>> you have been charged with a crime; typically this hermaphrodite
>>>> lawsuit is a "she-said-he-said" prosecution, yes, falsely pretending
>>>> to be a civil, as opposed to criminal, lawsuit.
>>>> 7. In effect you have no right to appeal because all your appellate
>>>> safeguards have been shitcanned by a 3-branch government cabal whose
>>>> bible and money supply are the Violence Against Women Act.
>>>> 8. Videri quam esse -- To seem rather than to be, the new motto in my
>>>> state of NC: The state of show trials, sleazebag judges, and star
>>>> chambers.
>>>> 9. In law and in application the restraining order orgy in North
>>>> Carolina discriminates against the poor who have no resources to hire
>>>> a court reporter or an attorney.
>>>> 10. Men are now sacrificial lambs on the altar of militant feminism;
>>>> we have allowed ourselves to slouch into a police state.
>>>> 11. The conclusion in the evil syllogism sworn to by the woman (so
>>>> many of them narcissistic exhibitionists and psychos like Martha
>>>> Grist) is invariably the self-serving mantra, "I don't feel safe in my
>>>> home."
>>
>>> What you describe is "administrative law".
>>
>>> This is strikingly similar to the "dependency court"
>>> (AKA Family Court or Juvenile Court)
>>> racket used by social services agencies to
>>> remove children under false circumstances
>>> and increase their agency funding.
>>
>>> You discovered that they refer to it
>>> as Civil Law, which strongly implies
>>> to me that you are actually dealing with
>>> Administrative Law.
>>
>>> The game they play is that since
>>> you did not lose any "Liberty Interest",
>>> meaning that you did not face incarceration,
>>> you were not entitled to the full protections
>>> described in the Bill Of Rights portion of
>>> the US Constitution.
>>
>>> Typically such an "Order Of Protection"
>>> would also be used to snub your
>>> parental rights, directly or in the hands
>>> of the Child Protection agency in
>>> "their" dependency administraive law court.
>>
>>> IF that is the case then the pretense
>>> that you are not entitled to full BOR
>>> "liberty interest" protection is a sham.
>>
>>> If the complainant is an ex or ex-wife
>>> and there were no kids, then their
>>> administrative end run around the
>>> BOR "liberty interest" protections
>>> might actually hold up.
>>
>>> Then it's merely a money/property matter.
>>
>>> Got kids?
>>
>>> It sounds like North Carolina has decided
>>> to use an administrative court
>>> Order of Protection to mark you as a
>>> domestic abuser without actually
>>> convicting you in a full criminal
>>> court process.
>>
>>> It seems like a pre-emptive process.
>>
>>> System sucks would call it "preventive" of course.
>>
>>> Several years ago I spotted and seized
>>> a poster from my local Social Services
>>> office that asked women if their husbands
>>> were in any way restricting their spending
>>> they were "economically abused" and
>>> suggested the "domestic abuse option".
>
> & > big deal several minutes ago a
> & > bunch of guys complained to
> & > their friends. it will happen
> & > again in a few more minutes
>
> In court?
>

full of shit ?

Greegor

6/15/2013 9:14:00 PM

0

On Jun 15, 2:27 pm, & <ampersand.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/15/2013 03:14 PM, Greegor wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, & <ampersand.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2013 01:32 PM, Greegor wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 15, 11:34 am, Topix Harlot Chris Tolles <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Violence Against Men: Militant Feminism --  Restraining Order
> >>>> Revolution -- Attack on the Bill of Rights -- Slouching Toward
> >>>> Totalitarianism
>
> >>>> 1.  When you get served with one of these devilish "stalking"
> >>>> petitions, you have no right to attorney; you'll have to hire one at
> >>>> $350/hr. and if you can't afford one, TS!
> >>>> 2.  Evidence is by the preponderance:  50% and a whiff is all the
> >>>> proof needed, as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" when charged
> >>>> with a crime.
> >>>> 3.  You have NO right to jury trial; the judge who serves as attorney
> >>>> for the "battered" woman finds the facts, or in my case, fabricates
> >>>> them.  They're trying to take away your right to a trial by jury!
> >>>> 4.  You have NO right to a transcript to rely on for an appeal to a
> >>>> higher court.
> >>>> 5.  You have NO right to cross-examine.  In my case the female judge,
> >>>> Julie "Damaged Goods" Kepple, refused to allow me to cross-examine.
> >>>> Every time I tried to ask a leading question, she would interrupt
> >>>> before I could utter even as much as 4 or 5 words of the question.
> >>>> 6.  You will be trapped in a hurricane of an uncorroborated witness
> >>>> lawsuit which claims DECEITFULLY to be a civil lawsuit when in fact
> >>>> you have been charged with a crime; typically this hermaphrodite
> >>>> lawsuit is a "she-said-he-said" prosecution, yes, falsely pretending
> >>>> to be a civil, as opposed to criminal, lawsuit.
> >>>> 7.  In effect you have no right to appeal  because all your appellate
> >>>> safeguards have been shitcanned by a 3-branch government cabal whose
> >>>> bible and money supply are the Violence Against Women Act.
> >>>> 8.  Videri quam esse -- To seem rather than to be, the new motto in my
> >>>> state of NC:  The state of show trials, sleazebag judges, and star
> >>>> chambers.
> >>>> 9.  In law and in application the restraining order orgy in North
> >>>> Carolina discriminates against the poor who have no resources to hire
> >>>> a court reporter or an attorney.
> >>>> 10.  Men are now sacrificial lambs on the altar of militant feminism;
> >>>> we have allowed ourselves to slouch into a police state.
> >>>> 11.  The conclusion in the evil syllogism sworn to by the woman (so
> >>>> many of them narcissistic exhibitionists and psychos like Martha
> >>>> Grist) is invariably the self-serving mantra, "I don't feel safe in my
> >>>> home."

G > What you describe is "administrative law".
G
G > This is strikingly similar to the "dependency court"
G > (AKA Family Court or Juvenile Court)
G > racket used by social services agencies to
G > remove children under false circumstances
G > and increase their agency funding.
G >
G > You discovered that they refer to it
G > as Civil Law, which strongly implies
G > to me that you are actually dealing with
G > Administrative Law.
G >
G > The game they play is that since
G > you did not lose any "Liberty Interest",
G > meaning that you did not face incarceration,
G > you were not entitled to the full protections
G > described in the Bill Of Rights portion of
G > the US Constitution.
G >
G > Typically such an "Order Of Protection"
G > would also be used to snub your
G > parental rights, directly or in the hands
G > of the Child Protection agency in
G > "their" dependency administraive law court.
G >
G > IF that is the case then the pretense
G > that you are not entitled to full BOR
G > "liberty interest" protection is a sham.
G >
G > If the complainant is an ex or ex-wife
G > and there were no kids, then their
G > administrative end run around the
G > BOR "liberty interest" protections
G > might actually hold up.
G >
G > Then it's merely a money/property matter.
G >
G > Got kids?
G >
G > It sounds like North Carolina has decided
G > to use an administrative court
G > Order of Protection to mark you as a
G > domestic abuser without actually
G > convicting you in a full criminal
G > court process.
G >
G > It seems like a pre-emptive process.
G > System sucks would call it "preventive" of course.
G >
G > Several years ago I spotted and seized
G > a poster from my local Social Services
G > office that asked women if their husbands
G > were in any way restricting their spending
G > they were "economically abused" and
G > suggested the "domestic abuse option".

& > big deal several minutes ago a
& > bunch of guys complained to
& > their friends. it will happen
& > again in a few more minutes

G > In court?

& > full of shit ?

Yes you are.

&

6/15/2013 9:25:00 PM

0

On 06/15/2013 05:13 PM, Greegor wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:27 pm, & <ampersand.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2013 03:14 PM, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, & <ampersand.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/15/2013 01:32 PM, Greegor wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 15, 11:34 am, Topix Harlot Chris Tolles <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Violence Against Men: Militant Feminism -- Restraining Order
>>>>>> Revolution -- Attack on the Bill of Rights -- Slouching Toward
>>>>>> Totalitarianism
>>
>>>>>> 1. When you get served with one of these devilish "stalking"
>>>>>> petitions, you have no right to attorney; you'll have to hire one at
>>>>>> $350/hr. and if you can't afford one, TS!
>>>>>> 2. Evidence is by the preponderance: 50% and a whiff is all the
>>>>>> proof needed, as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" when charged
>>>>>> with a crime.
>>>>>> 3. You have NO right to jury trial; the judge who serves as attorney
>>>>>> for the "battered" woman finds the facts, or in my case, fabricates
>>>>>> them. They're trying to take away your right to a trial by jury!
>>>>>> 4. You have NO right to a transcript to rely on for an appeal to a
>>>>>> higher court.
>>>>>> 5. You have NO right to cross-examine. In my case the female judge,
>>>>>> Julie "Damaged Goods" Kepple, refused to allow me to cross-examine.
>>>>>> Every time I tried to ask a leading question, she would interrupt
>>>>>> before I could utter even as much as 4 or 5 words of the question.
>>>>>> 6. You will be trapped in a hurricane of an uncorroborated witness
>>>>>> lawsuit which claims DECEITFULLY to be a civil lawsuit when in fact
>>>>>> you have been charged with a crime; typically this hermaphrodite
>>>>>> lawsuit is a "she-said-he-said" prosecution, yes, falsely pretending
>>>>>> to be a civil, as opposed to criminal, lawsuit.
>>>>>> 7. In effect you have no right to appeal because all your appellate
>>>>>> safeguards have been shitcanned by a 3-branch government cabal whose
>>>>>> bible and money supply are the Violence Against Women Act.
>>>>>> 8. Videri quam esse -- To seem rather than to be, the new motto in my
>>>>>> state of NC: The state of show trials, sleazebag judges, and star
>>>>>> chambers.
>>>>>> 9. In law and in application the restraining order orgy in North
>>>>>> Carolina discriminates against the poor who have no resources to hire
>>>>>> a court reporter or an attorney.
>>>>>> 10. Men are now sacrificial lambs on the altar of militant feminism;
>>>>>> we have allowed ourselves to slouch into a police state.
>>>>>> 11. The conclusion in the evil syllogism sworn to by the woman (so
>>>>>> many of them narcissistic exhibitionists and psychos like Martha
>>>>>> Grist) is invariably the self-serving mantra, "I don't feel safe in my
>>>>>> home."
>
> G > What you describe is "administrative law".
> G
> G > This is strikingly similar to the "dependency court"
> G > (AKA Family Court or Juvenile Court)
> G > racket used by social services agencies to
> G > remove children under false circumstances
> G > and increase their agency funding.
> G >
> G > You discovered that they refer to it
> G > as Civil Law, which strongly implies
> G > to me that you are actually dealing with
> G > Administrative Law.
> G >
> G > The game they play is that since
> G > you did not lose any "Liberty Interest",
> G > meaning that you did not face incarceration,
> G > you were not entitled to the full protections
> G > described in the Bill Of Rights portion of
> G > the US Constitution.
> G >
> G > Typically such an "Order Of Protection"
> G > would also be used to snub your
> G > parental rights, directly or in the hands
> G > of the Child Protection agency in
> G > "their" dependency administraive law court.
> G >
> G > IF that is the case then the pretense
> G > that you are not entitled to full BOR
> G > "liberty interest" protection is a sham.
> G >
> G > If the complainant is an ex or ex-wife
> G > and there were no kids, then their
> G > administrative end run around the
> G > BOR "liberty interest" protections
> G > might actually hold up.
> G >
> G > Then it's merely a money/property matter.
> G >
> G > Got kids?
> G >
> G > It sounds like North Carolina has decided
> G > to use an administrative court
> G > Order of Protection to mark you as a
> G > domestic abuser without actually
> G > convicting you in a full criminal
> G > court process.
> G >
> G > It seems like a pre-emptive process.
> G > System sucks would call it "preventive" of course.
> G >
> G > Several years ago I spotted and seized
> G > a poster from my local Social Services
> G > office that asked women if their husbands
> G > were in any way restricting their spending
> G > they were "economically abused" and
> G > suggested the "domestic abuse option".
>
> & > big deal several minutes ago a
> & > bunch of guys complained to
> & > their friends. it will happen
> & > again in a few more minutes
>
> G > In court?
>
> & > full of shit ?
>
> Yes you are.
>

i win