User talk:Shavedpubichair

RESPONSE:
Where you get the idea that the appeal contained any threat is unclear. The narrative I wrote above, only contains reasonable, objective FACTS, and does NOT make any statement of intention of actions, so I suggest you read it carefully. Pointing out one's criminal conduct does not a threat make. A threat, by basic dictionary definition, ALWAYS requires the element of quid pro quo, which means it must state BOTH a desired reaction AND an intended set of actions, should a person be non-compliant. problem is, that I see nothing in the above text that makes so much as an implied statement to that effect. Any interpretation as such, is simply because one knows that the block was wrongful in the first place. Further, your answer to the appeal fails to directly address the causative issues at hand, probably because you KNOW im RIGHT. The fact that you attempt to construe this as such is evidence of a guilty mind. To make things crystal clear for you, just so there is a firm understanding, I do not, at this time, have intentions of pursuing the issue within a legal forum, because If I did, I would have just simply taken legal action from the beginning, without warning. Now, on the other hand, what YOU said, WAS a threat, because YOU made clear, explicit, statement of intended actions, COUPLED with the intent to cause me to do something. Shavedpubichair (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to Mike V
First things first sir, with regard to the Sec. 241 Statute, that law imposes criminal penalties upon any PERSON who knowingly conspires to intimidate any person in the FREE EXERCISE of any right SO SECURED by the U.S. constitution or any federal statute. What we notice is that (1) that statute is aimed at private individuals, based upon the legal definition of "person". We also notice that [2] that the right need not be invokable against the DEFENDANT, but merely must only be so secured as a right by either the U.S. constitution or a statute, and that the defendant charged conspired to inhibit any act which was a FREE EXERCISE of that right. [3] Case law firmly establishes that both the Government, corporations, and other non-natural persons, are capable of forming a conspiracy, which is legally defined as the commission of any overt act in furtherance of the violation of a statute, unless the particular statute or the case law otherwise defines the term for purposes of the involved statute. and finally we must note that not all co-conspirators need be named defendant for a case to properly lie. Logically, it is difficult to find that if Congress shall pass no law to inhibit the free exercise of speech and of the press, then it follows that public policy dictates that private citizens have no authority to do the same, unless the requirement against congress be of moot effect. This is strengthened here when we must remember that the service here constituted a public accommodation by legal definition. When you make a service available to the public, that service becomes legally subject to public policy. Further, Given the fact that the case at hand involves highly Politically charged speech, an inference could be made that the Government was an involved actor, which is an issue of fact, not an issue of law. Further, if one brings the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause into it, which has historically been interpreted as applicable against non-governmental entities, then your arguments collapse under their own weight. Finally, wikipedia gives up its right to be classified as a private entity when it effectively became a public accommodation. (which it did when it indiscriminately offered a service to the general public free of charge) Public accommodations are generally subject to the same laws as the Government with respect to civil rights law.
 * Talk page access revoked. m.o.p  22:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)