Breaking: Drama at Manch Porc Manor

[error]

Mackler, just give up. Your distortion of the situation isn't helping your case at all.

[Alex Libman]

I gets the:

"The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."

[K. Darien Freeheart]

In other words, Michael Hampton has now, if reluctantly, acknowledged that when he publicly posted that I had committed an act of violence against my housemate, he knew that what he was writing was false

The only think more frightening than the possibility that you'd be manipulative enough to distort his words in that manner is the possibility that you ACTUALLY believe what you just typed out.

Michael was very clear that he did not recall making the claim that you were violent and IF HE DID MAKE IT, he is withdrawing that claim. He's not accusing you of anything except handling this situation in a manner that is immature and, frankly, forceful since you brought the violence of the state into it rather than attempting to actually come to some mutually beneficial conclusion.

[error]

He's not accusing you of anything except handling this situation in a manner that is immature

That's what the judge told him, too.

and, frankly, forceful since you brought the violence of the state into it rather than attempting to actually come to some mutually beneficial conclusion.

Which brings me to the thing that has really been bothering me ever since I found out Mackler moved here. And that is: Why? At this point it's clear to all that he does not fit in well with this community, does not share most of our values, and does not want to engage in open, honest discussion of anything. Especially after that last post.

So, why is Mackler here? So far I have seen him do nothing but cause trouble. I have not heard from a single person who has met him and has had a positive experience. If such a person exists, please come forward. Instead, the things I have heard, and what I have been able to verify independently, as well as my own observations, lead me to suspect that Mackler intends to hinder the freedom movement rather than advance it.

Further, it was suggested to me tonight that Mackler may be working for a law enforcement agency. I can't say one way or the other, but his actions in public view are certainly consistent with those of a law enforcement informant or agent provocateur. And even if he is not, he has certainly caused more trouble for us than even the U.S. Marshals did last year.

I stand by my call for general ostracism of Mackler.

[MengerFan]

I have not heard from a single person who has met him and has had a positive experience. If such a person exists, please come forward. Instead, the things I have heard, and what I have been able to verify independently, as well as my own observations, lead me to suspect that Mackler intends to hinder the freedom movement rather than advance it.

I have had two positive in-person interactions with Mackler, none negative.

As an occasional victim of bizarre and nonsensical allegations, I am inclined to see where the dude is coming from, based solely on the message board postings.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

If such a person exists, please come forward.

I've chatted with him a couple of times and he seemed alright. We both share a love for cats and he stopped over and chatted about cats with me while I was out on my porch smoking a cigar. He also came over to a bbq we had for neighborhood porcupines and seemed like a nice guy then too.

[J’raxis 270145]

He's not accusing you of anything except handling this situation in a manner that is immature

That's what the judge told him, too.

and, frankly, forceful since you brought the violence of the state into it rather than attempting to actually come to some mutually beneficial conclusion.

Which brings me to the thing that has really been bothering me ever since I found out Mackler moved here. And that is: Why? At this point it's clear to all that he does not fit in well with this community, does not share most of our values, and does not want to engage in open, honest discussion of anything. Especially after that last post.

So, why is Mackler here? So far I have seen him do nothing but cause trouble. I have not heard from a single person who has met him and has had a positive experience. If such a person exists, please come forward. Instead, the things I have heard, and what I have been able to verify independently, as well as my own observations, lead me to suspect that Mackler intends to hinder the freedom movement rather than advance it.

Further, it was suggested to me tonight that Mackler may be working for a law enforcement agency. I can't say one way or the other, but his actions in public view are certainly consistent with those of a law enforcement informant or agent provocateur. And even if he is not, he has certainly caused more trouble for us than even the U.S. Marshals did last year.

I stand by my call for general ostracism of Mackler.

I haven't had any negative experiences, at least. I've talked with him a couple times, usually about law and legal history. Most of my conversations with Mackler have actually been in an effort to move this current situation toward mediation, so I'm not going to discuss anything publicly about what was said, but I'd not describe anything as overtly negative.

I think accusing him of being some sort of agent provocateur is premature. He's definitely well into believing in the system (he's studying to be a lawyer, after all), but that just makes him a minarchist as opposed to a voluntaryist. His behavior is definitely consistent with how a provocateur might act, but it's also consistent with a lot of other possibilities, too (e.g., a libertarian who believes that the courts are legitimate), so I'd need to see something more conclusive.

[error]

At this point I have said all there is to say and I can do no more than to leave it to your own judgment.

[Fluff and Stuff]

I have not heard from a single person who has met him and has had a positive experience. If such a person exists, please come forward.

To be honest, I've never had an experience in person which was negative because of something another FSPer did.  This is also true of my interactions with Adam.  I've met him a few times and he seemed nice.

[Russell Kanning]

I think accusing him of being some sort of agent provocateur is premature. He's definitely well into believing in the system (he's studying to be a lawyer, after all), but that just makes him a minarchist as opposed to a voluntaryist.

did u use the 'l' word?
oh he must be trouble then

we will have to bing out the

[Kat Kanning]

we will have to bing out the

/shudder  I'd hate to be 'bing'ed with that! 

[mackler]

did u use the 'l' word?
oh he must be trouble then

Yes, all lawyers are bad people.

That's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold.

It takes a lot of effort to judge people as individuals.  Much easier to lump them into groups.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

It takes a lot of effort to judge people as individuals.

I think arguing that lawyers are "blood sucking parasites" is wrong, since not all. But you have to keep in mind that not everyone who is "liberty minded" is a minarchist. I'm not exactly sure where I put lawyers in the spectrum of things, but I have to seriously wonder if there's not an inherent evil in the profession of lawyering like there's one in the profession of copping.

All lawyers I've met believe that the system is a legitimate means to an end. Perhaps in your case you want to be a lawyer to "protect people's rights" and while on the surface, I think that's a noble gesture, I have to ask if it's ethically just to use a system that, in all ends, exists simply because of the implied threat of violence.

That said, I don't think much of the hostility here comes from the fact that you're a lawyer, it comes from the fact that people in the web of trust here say you're not to be trusted and you're a threat to life, liberty and property. *nods*