<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Wyoming Supreme Court Victory	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.narsol.org/2023/04/wyoming-supreme-court-victory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.narsol.org/2023/04/wyoming-supreme-court-victory/</link>
	<description>National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:24:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: mut		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2023/04/wyoming-supreme-court-victory/#comment-30361</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mut]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 May 2023 13:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://narsol.org/?p=90903#comment-30361</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[i hope he is able to comnence a civil or criminal action for involuntary servitude.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i hope he is able to comnence a civil or criminal action for involuntary servitude.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim in WI		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2023/04/wyoming-supreme-court-victory/#comment-30358</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim in WI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2023 04:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://narsol.org/?p=90903#comment-30358</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[DCI may not, but did! What does this say about 1. The database driven state overreaching without basic facts. 2. The competence of the Agent&#039;s ability to accurately interpret the law? The article makes no reference to who signed a warrant?  The defendant here was the &quot; non moving party&quot; and by this fact in civil terms has the benefit of reason to doubt.  The agents actions here are not only incompetent but actionable in a way not covered by immunity! Why? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Clearly ( I presume agent is a she) she was ignorant by her own negligence of what she should have known....the law!
AGAIN we see errant administrative justification corrected necessarily by a Supreme Court and not resolved by lessor means. 
 When it takes Supreme Court decisions to determine when every citizen can say &quot; No!&quot; to administrative authority even in the plain language of the law ( as we see here) all individual presumption of innocence is overridden until the high court opines. Meaning no presumption exists at all.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DCI may not, but did! What does this say about 1. The database driven state overreaching without basic facts. 2. The competence of the Agent&#8217;s ability to accurately interpret the law? The article makes no reference to who signed a warrant?  The defendant here was the &#8221; non moving party&#8221; and by this fact in civil terms has the benefit of reason to doubt.  The agents actions here are not only incompetent but actionable in a way not covered by immunity! Why? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Clearly ( I presume agent is a she) she was ignorant by her own negligence of what she should have known&#8230;.the law!<br />
AGAIN we see errant administrative justification corrected necessarily by a Supreme Court and not resolved by lessor means.<br />
 When it takes Supreme Court decisions to determine when every citizen can say &#8221; No!&#8221; to administrative authority even in the plain language of the law ( as we see here) all individual presumption of innocence is overridden until the high court opines. Meaning no presumption exists at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
