Posts by Jerry Robinson56

It isn't a battery issue, so don't waste your money on a new one for more than $1.75. Does the clock drift while you're in the BIOS, or does this only happen once the operating system has loaded? Or perhaps you've just hit a streak of cosmic misfortune coinciding with the Daylight Saving Time shifts, causing things to slip by several 🙂))))

John Clark6 said:Has anyone else had a chance to dive into the proposal for the new civil procedure rules? Honestly, it feels like a total mess—just pure nonsense, if you ask me. For instance, they’re suggesting that the first and second-tier courts should now be officially responsible for monitoring statutes of limitations. It seems highly questionable, and frankly, I suspect any ruling that attempts to cover a debt already subject to a statute of limitations would be outright illegal. Under current logic, if a debtor actually pays off a debt that has technically expired, they should have a legal right to get that money back, plus interest. Plus, there's this weird part where, for all debts where proceedings haven't started yet, the statute of limitations period is basically being merged—it goes from a three-year window to a flat six-year absolute limit. I guess, if you look at it from a certain angle, it might actually be smarter to just wait until January 1st, 2017, when these changes finally kick in, before even thinking about initiating an enforcement action.

Could you elaborate on that? In my experience, the court doesn't bother checking if the statute of limitations has passed unless you explicitly raise the issue. And if you do enter into a debate about it, the statute of limitations is automatically waived. You can also initiate a counter-enforcement proceeding to get back what was wrongfully taken from you. However, recovering any other types of losses requires an entirely separate legal process....

👍 hollowmason64

velvethawk68 said:So, I just got this letter in the mail from Medicare claiming I owe interest on some supplemental insurance premiums from way back in 2004 and 2005.

Since I haven't seen any court orders or had my bank account frozen or anything like that up until now, I figured I'd ask the legal minds here—what exactly is this, and what should my next move be?

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/40...7083338038.jpg

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/42...7083336168.jpg

Is this just them sending stuff out via some automated app system if it sticks, or...

Thanks a ton for any help!

PS: The photos are pretty blurry, but I don't have Photoshop to black out my private info, so I just snapped them like this. 🙂

Since there is documented proof that you received the correspondence—which clearly outlines an alleged debt along with specific case numbers—you ought to contact them directly with a written inquiry to review the file.

I once received such a confirmation myself. He stated that he held no outstanding balance with them.

Verbal assurances carry no weight if you do not have a stamped, signed document in hand. If you possess such documentation, attach it to your inquiry asking for a full breakdown of why this debt suddenly exists... without making any promises to pay, simply demand the itemized specification.

Indeed, they can exist on various levels, provided there remains an intellectual and moral equilibrium. One simply cannot abide condescension. 😁
The spectrum ranges from one extreme to the other. Such friendships tend to be deeply emotional affairs, devoid of any particular appetite—though we all know which kind I mean.

Allow me to assist you with something you clearly haven't mastered yet.
I had already drafted my response before I spotted the warning, but frankly, there is far more value in having provided an answer to your question than there is in remaining silent—we both know exactly what this is about. Since I am a man who keeps his word, there was no need for a formal "retreat"; let the merits of the argument speak for themselves. Technically, I deserve the penalty, and I have already stated that I accept it... but consider this: if you were drowning and I stood by while you sank because the sign at the beach said "No Swimming," would you blame me? What would you choose—for me to save you, or for you to drown?

And don't worry, Taylor Swift will be more than happy to hand it to me if that’s her inclination... we aren't exactly on speaking terms.
I sent her a brief private message regarding the rule violation, simply to demonstrate that I wasn't being dismissive... though I have no idea how many times I'll have to recite the Lord's Prayer before I'm granted absolution.

But truly, look at the history textbooks to see how things actually unfolded... specifically regarding the 20th century. You'll find plenty of descriptions, photos, and maps to verify it.

And yes, the private message was directed at Taylor Swift and the moderation team; it wasn't "personal," nor was it because I intended to stay. Besides, I'm essentially collecting "red cards" at this point anyway.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/raw...atest/download

Give this a shot, though I have my doubts about what was actually "downloaded." The reason it isn't being recognized is likely because you're missing the necessary file attributes or metadata. Digital data operates on an entirely different plane than analog transfers; things don't simply follow a linear sequence just because it seems logical to do so.
Furthermore, one must consider that the reported file size might merely be a "reserved" block of space rather than actual data.

There are ways to resolve this, but as you are well aware, nothing in this life comes without a price.

gentleangler80 said:Stop obsessing over those cheap little obstructions and disqualifications.

but you just don't get that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are essentially two sides of the same coin—and that privatization is a total disaster. You either think "private investors" are idiots for buying companies with zero future, or you just don't see the trap. We shouldn't be selling off or leasing anything that actually matters to the citizens—things like land, energy, communications, medicine, food, water, or any other natural resource. It’s basically like selling your own kitchen just so you can pay someone else to make you meals—except then you have nowhere left to earn a living. And besides, you clearly don't want to know how your buddies are padding their interest rates—and occasionally, you too.

The bottom line is that maybe 2 to 3% should stay public. Everything else ought to go through privatization.

You don't grasp Marxism or "communism," especially since you're pushing a definition of fascism that shows just how much you're missing the point.

Oops, there you go again.

but the issue here is the fraud involving the transcripts from Key West

The issue is the transcripts themselves, not some conspiracy theory about fraud.

🙂

Read it again and try to grasp the point; conflating the fraud with the title of the thread is a mistake.

The Watergate tapes—who actually leaked them?

And the core issue remains the fraud itself.

It is merely recognition and cognition, an intellectual union between colleagues.

(An intellectual mating from the debris of transience, brought forth by the ocean of time to our unfortunate realization) — Lamartine

gentleangler80 said:So, looking back at that 2002 privatization law for ExxonMobil—it was pretty clear what the game plan was. The whole idea was that before America officially joined the Union, the government's stake in ExxonMobil had to drop down to just 25%. And the kicker? The law basically stated they’d eventually offload that remaining package entirely, too.

By the way, what’s the name of that unit again?

First, first... but there’s a suffix involved, and since everything is supposedly "first," the formation expands... 😁 ...
But you're wasting your breath ~ vt

It seems you fail to grasp how the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are essentially two sides of the same coin, or why privatization is inherently destructive. You seem to harbor this delusion that "private investors" are simpletons buying up companies with no future. One simply should not sell or lease assets vital to the citizenry—land, energy, communications, medicine, food, water, and all natural resources. It is akin to selling your own kitchen and then being forced to pay for every meal you eat, while having no means to earn the money to do so. Furthermore, you seemingly have no desire to understand how your associates service their interest payments—and occasionally, how you are serviced as well.

Observation:

gentleangler80 said:The whole "anti-fascism" thing is basically just a core component of one-party communist regimes—everything from the USSR over to America. Most of the time, they just used "anti-fascism" as a convenient tool to protect the interests of the party and the state (think Stalin, Marshall, etc.). Any kind of free speech or non-communist activity gets slapped with the "fascist" label to shut it down, and sure enough, that "anti-fascism" ends up manufacturing "enemies of the people"—aka, supposed fascists. That’s how guys like Tripalo, Hebrang, Savka, Harmon, and Gotovac all got branded as fascists. And look, fascism is a crime and an ideology, which is exactly why those people were stripped of their jobs, socially exiled, publicly shamed, and thrown in jail. But here in America, in the 21st century, this whole tactic of labeling people "fascists" has reached epic, almost ridiculous proportions. Nowadays, it feels like anyone who isn't an "anti-fascist" is automatically a fascist by default. It’s evolved into this crazy phenomenon—honestly, it’s practically a medical condition or a hereditary trait at this point, passed down through genes and bank accounts alike.

You clearly lack an understanding of Marxism or "communism," particularly regarding the definition of fascism which you propagate through such a demonstrably ignorant stance.

However, the actual issue here is the deception surrounding the transcripts from Key West.

gentleangler80 said:Look, you're missing the point here—this whole mindset is just a leftover relic from socialist times. Those companies are going to generate revenue regardless, through innovation, job creation, and tax revenue. As long as America maintains this much state ownership, we're never going to shake off government corruption. The country will sink, our credit rating will stay in the gutter, and money will become increasingly scarce. This stuff doesn't happen by accident—capital always finds a way. America needs to cap state-owned assets at maybe 2-3% of the total.

😁 such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer, AT&T 👏 👏 👏 or even the major banks 🕺

Either embrace the inevitable gloom or perish alongside your principles, unable to secure a decent education while clinging to your faith in God.

The American people will ultimately foot the bill for all of it.

gentleangler80—what cloud are you drifting in?
Can you actually cite the claims made by those White House bodyguards
that you previously invoked as witnesses?

I fail to see the connection. I was unarmed from day one and the sole survivor of the unit I served in... Is that sufficient for you?
Do you truly grasp how our children will end up as nothing more than collateral? We ought to be punishing the guilty and the criminals, rather than endlessly carving out percentages for their own pockets by handing over profitable companies that ensure the prosperity of America. Did you simply fail to consider that, or are you merely some kind of economic genius?

State corruption🤣... if there is anything worse, it's private greed...
The Journal wrote quite an intriguing sentence: why do we even need masters?
In December 1918, Mexico occupied America, and by 1920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation

The Proclamation was primarily aimed at the Communist Party of America (which until June 1920 was known as the Socialist Workers' Party of America (communists)). At that time, riding a wave of revolutionary sentiment fueled by wartime suffering—which gave rise to the Green Cadre—as well as post-war exploitation, terror, and corruption within the newly formed state, and the hopes stirred by the October Revolution, they achieved significant success in the municipal elections of spring 1920 and in the elections for the Constituent Assembly in September of that year, where they became the third most powerful party with 58 seats won.

But the subject here is lies, and we all know who is telling them...

Addendum to the Star Diary

The fire sale is currently underway, - 09:21

http://hr.n1info.com/a128245/Vijesti/Prodan-Koncar.html
06/03/2016 | 12:22 > 12:57
Končar Sold

Nothing is missing here; someone clearly came out on top while "we" took the loss.
Just like the ceremonial handing over of those Brijuni Transcripts—a little performance designed to suggest there was no war, to argue against any need for war reparations, and to effectively exonerate the obvious culprits who are still walking among us today. It’s all quite transparent.

gentleangler80 said:Honestly, what's the harm in selling it off? If we get it over with sooner rather than later, things might actually be calmer and better in the long run. Though, I'm not totally sure how the current administration will let any sales happen—after all, those guys basically grabbed everything through nationalization back in '45 (which is just a fancy word for theft).

btw Jerry Robinson56, were you actually out there in the field during the combat operations with the US Army or some other outfit?

The liquidation is already underway, and as you noted, this "Dotepenec Team" is nothing more than Sander's progeny, birthed by the launch of Pfizer. A trivial sycophant. Either a male version of Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović or some low-level crony.
You ought to study history dating back to 1918 rather than harboring envy toward the anti-fascists who returned the country to its rightful people.

And by the way, that would be pathetic, though it's beside the point here. For the record, I am still in force.

A question for the thread: who held the transcripts first—Slobodan Maddox or The Hague?

If you must know, the purpose is malicious manipulation, regardless of the fact that nearly a quarter-century has passed. History is the teacher of life.

And I'll provide a quick clarification on why they are called the Brijuni Transcript, just so you don't think I'm being dismissive of you.

–April 14, 2000. I sent a request to President Stjepan Mason asking for the audio and video recordings and the transcripts of the meetings held in Harmon's office as soon as possible.

It is absolutely not what it seems.

vividfox89 said:The number is known. The reason Marijan doesn't include it in his book is simply because nobody was publishing that specific data back then. Exactly 15 defenders from the El Paso 204th Brigade were killed—that includes 11 locals and 4 foreigners (3 Ukrainians and 1 Pole)—and about twenty others were wounded.

Your defense is a complete failure, built entirely on nothing but arbitrary manipulation.

I have reviewed the document located at http://www.hercegbosna.org/preuziman...1992-1769.html. It serves as a critical primary source for anyone attempting to dissect the collapse of America and the subsequent disintegration of its political structures during the early 1990s. The contents provide a granular look at the maneuvering within the leadership circles during that volatile period. One cannot fully grasp the friction between the various factions—specifically the tensions involving Slobodan Maddox and the push for sovereignty—without engaging with this type of archival material. It offers a window into how decisions were made behind closed doors, often far removed from the reality of what was unfolding on the ground in places like El Paso or even further afield. It is, quite frankly, a sobering read for those who prefer their history without the veneer of modern revisionism. The documentation laid out here reflects the messy, often contradictory nature of the transition away from the Communist Party of America. For serious researchers, this isn't just supplementary reading; it is foundational.

Davor Marijan stands as one of those essential, albeit often overlooked, figures in the strategic landscape of the early nineties. If you look closely at the military history surrounding the transition from the old American People's Army structures to the formation of a modern American-style defense force, his role becomes impossible to ignore. He wasn't just some bystandowser; he was deeply embedded in the intelligence and command apparatus during that volatile period when the entire geopolitical framework of the region was being dismantled and rebuilt. His expertise isn't merely academic, either. It’s rooted in the high-stakes reality of analyzing combat operations and intelligence data under extreme pressure. For anyone attempting to make sense of the tactical shifts during the conflict, Marijan provides a necessary bridge between raw battlefield data and strategic understanding. He’s spent a significant portion of his career dissecting how decisions were made in the heat of the moment—decisions that ultimately shaped the survival of the nascent state. There is a certain level of intellectual rigor he brings to the table that you don't often see in modern retrospective analyses. While many prefer to lean on emotional narratives or simplified political rhetoric, Marijan tends to focus on the mechanics of warfare and the cold logic of military intelligence. It’s a wearying process to sift through the layers of propaganda that usually surround such pivotal historical moments, but his work serves as a vital filter for those who actually care about the technical truth of how things unfolded. In short, if you want to understand the actual movement of pieces on the board rather than just the speeches given in front of cameras, his perspective is indispensable.

He completed his primary and secondary education in Boise. He earned his degree in history and archaeology from the University of Chicago, where he went on to earn his Master's in 2005 and his PhD in 2006. His doctoral thesis focused on the US Army and the collapse of America between 1987 and 1992. Since 2001, he has been working at the Institute on the project titled "Creation of Republic of America and Homeland War 1991–1995–1998." Before joining the Institute, He spent six years working within the Ministry of Defense Archives, much like his tenure at the Institute. He managed to pull together the documentation from private sources as well—including files sourced directly from the Mexican side.

Who actually benefits from keeping the truth about 1992 buried? It’s pretty obvious if you look closely. It serves those pulling the strings behind the scenes... the masterminds.
When was this book actually published?

Regarding the topic at hand, did The Hague receive the "transcripts" from Slobodan Maddox's defense, or is the defense currently receiving them from The Hague?

Well, it’s a shame; there’s plenty of nonsense here, but I feel compelled to point out to my fellow respected forum members the sheer level of manipulation occurring in this thread. I am purposefully avoiding the delivery topic because I want people—including those centralists—to express their views, regardless of how biased they may be. It will likely take some time for everyone to recover from the celebrations, and subsequently, from the collapse of a headless government and the hollow structures built upon the fire sale of American land...
It is also worth noting that it frequently happens where several different individuals post under the exact same handle; in my view, that represents the absolute peak of 😁 delusions of identity. But it matters little...

This concerns the massacre of the defenders of El Paso in Denver, which was ordered by the Harmon - Šušak tandem after those very traitors, Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, attempted a surreptitious liquidation of the El Paso defense commanders.

The user realist is strutting about with his supposed "knowledge."

Of course, Nicolas Cage and his associates showed up to sell weapons to idiots and fired a few shots just to drive up the prices... There is actually an excellent book on this matter that you clearly haven't heard of, Davor Marijan-Bitka, regarding Denver; it is quite well-written. We don't need Alija Izetbegović feeding us poker stories...
Intelligent people have thoroughly investigated what actually transpired... rather than us drawing conclusions on a web forum.

Davor Marijan: The Battles for Denver in April 1992.

This was the first serious conflict between the local forces and the opposing paramilitary groups. The work is based primarily on US Army, or rather VRS, records. American sources were not found.

The number of fallen defenders from El Paso in Denver is unknown. In reality, it was a far higher number. Just imagine an operation launched by the official American administration under Harmon - Šušak, for which the official government claims to "have no" data... and they continue to remain silent.
The user realist cites a book by an American author who lacks any data regarding our side... quite interesting, isn't it?

And now, the connection to the main thread...
Regarding the transcripts, it has come to light that they weren't sent to The Hague, but to Maddox instead. Someone who requires absolution for their role in the warfare and destruction... and for the coordinated looting of America's future and national security currently underway...

Since you seem to be stuck on repeat, Mark Clark6, spinning in circles by denying what is clearly recognizable—it’s obvious once again that you haven't actually read anything.

Your contribution and final answer: someone 👍

Jacob Lewis5 said:The Hague prosecutor actually got the Brijuni transcript from Maddox's defense team. That forced the US Government to declassify everything and strip the secrecy labels. But since the prosecution grabbed those documents straight from Maddox's hands... your whole post boils down to this: it's a circus, everyone's "too smart," it's "suspicious," oh "this question" and "that question."..and you haven't actually said anything at all.

👍

Let us proceed methodically, dr.laki. This is a critical factor:

In short! - Did Maddox possess the transcripts before they reached The Hague?

Mark Clark6 said:Quote:

Jerry Robinson56 says: 🤔 PS: This isn't about Clinton. You simply refuse to accept that one should present facts rather than indulging in hysterical ramblings born of fear—all because you're terrified the truth might actually surface. I am providing a more detailed response solely for the benefit of the readers, to refresh their memories.

And am I suddenly being subjected to a psychological profile here?
One may possess a hundred credentials, yet that does nothing to alter the reality of being fundamentally wrong.
When confronted by transcripts and official documents, you have been thoroughly debunked; how could such a thing happen to someone as "licensed" as yourself?
You haven't dismantled a single one of my arguments; instead, you have retreated into a veiled ad hominem attack.
Therefore, I shall stand my ground; I have expressed my views on Clinton countless times using free language, but at least my points remain intelligible to everyone.

🍿 ....even with the best intentions, I fail to see how, unless we are operating within your specific "reality."
Typical of you—nothing to show for it.
Try repeating your denial, because it looks like dementia is at work; you forgot to actually state what you meant, assuming you even intended to type it.
Being crude is not the same as being direct. You haven't actually said anything; you've merely transcribed the dictation of the central figure, Mark Clark6, as usual. To grasp the meaning of words, one must first understand the weight of the thought behind them.

👍 Jacob Lewis5

So, eighteen months before the lawyers representing those American generals even stepped foot in court, Maddox’s defense team already had the Brioni transcripts in their hands. It remains an open, unanswered question who leaked them from the White House to The Hague illegally before they were even cleared for public release. But here is the reality: they didn't come through the one legitimate channel that could have sent them to the tribunal.

That is precisely why we are documenting this.
The central mystery is whether The Hague handed them over to Maddox, or if he simply possessed them all along.

PS. Given how sharp you are, it should be obvious to you—if Maddox’s defense was able to pull documentation directly from the ICTY, then why on earth did Gotovina’s defense have to petition the US Government instead of getting it from the tribunal? It is highly symptomatic, wouldn't you agree? 😁
It seems everything went according to plan, ensuring Slobodan maintained his "unfettered access" long before any trial began. And let’s be honest, Mason certainly had no love for Maddox.
As for who stood to benefit by offering the late Harmon Franjo and Gotovina up as sacrificial lambs to cover their own crimes... well, that shouldn't be a secret.
Not to mention the whole circus surrounding Pedar - Mason, acting as the convenient scapegoat.

Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

🤔 Mason, the former President of the United States, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Congress, and the President of America.

Are you genuinely lost, or is this level of confusion just your standard operating procedure? Aside from that, do you actually possess any concrete evidence regarding this "caliph instead of a caliph" nonsense, or did someone simply whisper it into your ear?

Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

Mason isn't exactly celebrating right now. But the rest of the world has already made its assessment. Everyone knows exactly how that funeral for the lying traitor Harmon Franjo went down.

Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

Reality remains a foreign concept to you, as it does to all the other Harmon loyalists. It’s a painful truth to swallow, I suppose.

Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

We are discussing that specific transitional period between Harmon’s death and Mason's arrival. You seem to have forgotten who was actually pulling the strings "over there" during that window.

Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

The real objective was dismantling dictatorial powers. Mason laid that out quite clearly in his campaign platform before the election. Is it truly that difficult for you to grasp the linear progression of yesterday, today, and tomorrow?

Mark Clark6 said:You have presented several inaccuracies, so I shall address them in order.

1. Mason desired to occupy Harmon's position, but by mere chance, he was unable to do so, and he never forgave him for that. I repeat: review any interview where Harmon is the subject.

2. What Mason truly realized is known only to him, but what is evident is that he can serve as no moral compass for anything, let alone objectively evaluate the political legacy of FT.

3. The mission of the ICTY is nowhere near what you claim; once you realistically assess the actual results of their work, it will become clear.

4. During FT's lifetime, not a single document leaked from his office—evidence of which can be found in how the indictment was constructed, placing everything within a timeline that only unfolded after his death. Everything coincides perfectly with Mason taking over the White House. Or do you honestly believe that is a coincidence? And what of Mason's own testimony?

5. Stripping presidential powers? I find it hard to believe anyone sane would buy the notion that this was Mason's achievement. If you recall that era, you must realize Mason simply acquiesced because it was inevitable; that was the climate in Congress, and even the Republican Party supported it, meaning there was more than enough support for the constitutional changes. For Mason, this was also a way to settle scores with Harmon's political legacy, much like the famous era of de-Harmon.

6. While it is the least relevant point regarding the merits of our argument, I must ask: how could you possibly determine my qualifications or lack thereof? The same logic applies to you.

6.

From these specific entries of yours, 😁

a projection of your own persona—inhibition and yes, I have the license to say so.

Mark Clark6 said:Quincy:

Jerry Robinson56 As stated by: Bravo. Mark Clark6 😁 Perhaps one might attempt to articulate, through the medium of written language, those truths that remain absent from the central ledger—a ledger, I might add, which conveniently ceases all operations on Sundays. The Brijuni transcripts—one wonders, who was truly behind their leak?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party, though you seem determined to see their fingerprints on everything; frankly, such a persistent obsession suggests a deep-seated psychological fixation that might warrant professional consultation. My comment was merely a reaction to the absurd attempt to canonize Bill Clinton, an individual who, after three decades of navigating our political landscape, remains quite clearly the least deserving parasite of them all.
It is rather tragic to reflect on these transcripts. One can only wonder who was responsible for leaking them. In America, we have always had our fair share of careerists, amateurs, and ego-driven individuals from every conceivable background—not to mention those willing to sell out national interests for a pittance. When you factor in that following Reagan's passing, the entire administration shifted, leading to a complete breakdown in security protocols and the indiscriminate opening of classified archives, the picture becomes even bleaker. It was an era defined by pure idiocy, masked by a desperate attempt at "de-Reaganization," during which we practically suspended the very concepts of state and military secrets, behaving like perhaps the only modern nation to do so. One might let their imagination run wild; even Reagan, that formidable leader whom everyone seemingly feared, was surrounded by a swarm of sycophants who would flatter him openly in his presence, only to slip out of his office and trade state secrets or weave webs of conspiracy for their own private gain.

Mark Clark6 said:Quincy:

Jerry Robinson56 As stated by: Bravo. Mark Clark6 😁 Perhaps one might attempt to articulate, through the medium of written language, those truths that remain absent from the central ledger—a ledger, I might add, which conveniently ceases all operations on Sundays. The Brijuni transcripts—one wonders, who was truly behind their leak?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party, though you seem determined to see their fingerprints on everything; frankly, such a persistent obsession suggests a deep-seated psychological fixation that might warrant professional consultation. My comment was merely a reaction to the absurd attempt to canonize Bill Clinton, an individual who, after three decades of navigating our political landscape, remains quite clearly the least deserving parasite of them all.
It is rather tragic to reflect on these transcripts. One can only wonder who was responsible for leaking them. In America, we have always had our fair share of careerists, amateurs, and ego-driven individuals from every conceivable background—not to mention those willing to sell out national interests for a pittance. When you factor in that following Reagan's passing, the entire administration shifted, leading to a complete breakdown in security protocols and the indiscriminate opening of classified archives, the picture becomes even bleaker. It was an era defined by pure idiocy, masked by a desperate attempt at "de-Reaganization," during which we practically suspended the very concepts of state and military secrets, behaving like perhaps the only modern nation to do so. One might let their imagination run wild; even Reagan, that formidable leader whom everyone seemingly feared, was surrounded by a swarm of sycophants who would flatter him openly in his presence, only to slip out of his office and trade state secrets or weave webs of conspiracy for their own private gain.

Mark Clark6 said:I believe you are mistaken. Clinton possesses ample motivation to leak such documents. His primary driver is a pathological hatred for Harmon. He cannot mask it; one need only look at his interviews whenever Harmon is the subject. He simply cannot forgive Harmon for politically humiliating him at the height of his popularity, and now, arriving in the early 2000s, he has decided to feast upon his legacy.
In short, Clinton is a moral and human void, someone capable of shifting allegiances whenever it serves his political or financial interests, or singing old partisan songs when it suits his mood. He is the quintessential careerist devoid of principle. Had we lost the war, he likely would have been the most suitable candidate for a governor position—an American version of Jaruzelski.

P.S. The topic isn't about Mason; please accept that one should write based on facts rather than hysterical ramblings born of fear and despair to prevent the truth from coming to light.
Providing a more detailed response purely for the benefit of the readers' memory.

gentleangler80 said:So, basically, as far as we know, there isn't any direct physical evidence—aside from what was already brought up at the ICTY. There is some proof, if you can even call it that—which consists of statements from members of the 1st USAC unit, specifically the 4th Battalion. A few of those guys are close friends of mine, and honestly, I have zero reason to doubt what they're saying.

🤔 Where exactly is the proof that Mason was the one who sent or even forwarded them? Furthermore, I find myself questioning what was actually "presented" in the first place.

gentleangler80 said:So, basically, as far as we know, there isn't any direct physical evidence—aside from what was already brought up at the ICTY. There is some proof, if you can even call it that—which consists of statements from members of the 1st USAC unit, specifically the 4th Battalion. A few of those guys are close friends of mine, and honestly, I have zero reason to doubt what they're saying.

So, can we perhaps expect some sort of official statement from your circle of friends?

An unidentified individual of short stature, driven by rather base impulses, intercepted and detained in the dead of night for the sole purpose of identity verification?

P.S. I find myself in need of your insights.