Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
from the these-assholes-deserve-everything-coming-to-them dept
Former Trump lawyer/current conspiracy theorist/lawsuit defendant Sidney Powell has one more thing to add to her extremely dubious CV: sanctions.
The attorney general for the state of Michigan -- one of the states alleged to be the home of election fraud by Sidney Powell and her like-minded associates -- pressed for sanctions, using Powell's own statements against her. Powell claimed her statements about election fraud were nothing more than heated hyperbole that no reasonable person would have believed were facts when seeking to have Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuit dismissed. Michigan's AG noted this same "hyperbole" formed the basis of the election fraud lawsuit she had filed in Michigan, which basically meant Powell expected the court to take her wild speculation as credible and potentially provable facts.
You can't have it both ways. Powell is now being sanctioned, along with several other lawyers (including L. Lin Wood) who participated in this harmful waste of government resources. The sanctions order [PDF] is a brutal masterpiece. It runs 110 pages and it details everything wrong about Powell's actions and allegations. Someone give Judge Linda Parker a raise.
This is the opening paragraph, which gives the reader a pretty good idea how the rest of the order is going to run. If that reader is one of the lawyers being sanctioned, this paragraph is a swift punch to the solar plexus. Unfortunately for those particular readers, it's only the first blow in a sustained, impeccably delivered beating.
This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what happened here.
Don't even bother getting up, Powell and co. [Emphasis in the original.]
The attorneys who filed the instant lawsuit abused the well-established rules applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law; proffering claims not backed by evidence (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging in the required pre-filing inquiry; and dragging out these proceedings even after they acknowledged that it was too late to attain the relief sought.
And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.
Blow after blow.
The sanctity of both the courtroom and the litigation process are preserved only when attorneys adhere to this oath and follow the rules, and only when courts impose sanctions when attorneys do not. And despite the haze of confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.
The multiple lawyers being sanctioned raise a variety of terrible arguments as to why they shouldn't be held accountable for their blatant abuse of the judicial system. The judge doesn't like any of them.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that no attorney can be sanctioned whose name appeared only in typewritten form; that no attorney besides Plaintiffs’ local counsel has appeared or signed a document filed in this matter; and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to sanction any attorney who did not personally appear or sign a document filed in this matter. Yet, the local attorneys assert that, although they signed the filings, they did not prepare them and thus should not be responsible for them. As such, no attorney wants to take responsibility now that sanctions are sought for filing this lawsuit.
Wrong.
In this age of electronic filing, it is frivolous to argue that an electronic signature on a pleading or motion is insufficient to subject the attorney to the court’s jurisdiction if the attorney violates the jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct or a federal rule or statute establishing the standards of practice. As set forth earlier, Sidney Powell, Scott Hagerstrom, and Gregory Rohl electronically signed—at least—the Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Motion for Injunctive Relief. The remaining attorneys, except Junttila, were listed as “Of Counsel” on one or more of the pleadings.
This is directed at Powell and her defamation lawsuit defense:
It is not acceptable to support a lawsuit with opinions, which counsel herself claims no reasonable person would accept as fact and which were “inexact,” “exaggerate[ed],” and “hyperbole.” Nor is it acceptable to use the federal judiciary as a political forum to satisfy one’s political agenda. Such behavior by an attorney in a court of law has consequences. Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to say what they desire on social media, in press conferences, or on television, federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes which are well-grounded in fact and law.
Then there's L. Lin Wood. He claims he shouldn't even be facing sanctions because he was not officially part of this lawsuit. The court points out Wood never made any mention about being improperly included in Powell's suit until he was facing sanctions. He also claimed he was never served by the state, but the state offered affidavits showing none of its electronic or physical mail sent to Wood was ever returned as undeliverable. Judge Parker serves up this succinct summation of Wood's claims, which could also serve as an epitaph for his Trump-era lawyering.
[W]ood is not credible.
This comes with a footnote attached that points out Wood's own brief in this case suggests he was made aware of the court order to appear in mid-June via phone call, contradicting his claim before the judge that he didn't know anything about it until reading about the sanctions effort in the newspaper.
But the most damning evidence that Wood is lying about his lack of awareness are his own tweets.
On January 5, 2021, the day the City filed the motion, Wood tweeted a link to an article with the motion, stating that it was “unfair” for the City to seek sanctions against him.
He also took credit for filing this lawsuit -- the one he now claims he was added to without his explicit permission -- in a filing before the Delaware Supreme Court.
Other attorneys trying desperately to distance themselves from this lawsuit now that it's sanctionable fare no better. Emily Newman claimed she only spent about "five hours" on the lawsuit and performed that work at home. So what? asks the court.
By placing her name on the initial and amended complaints, Newman presented pleadings to the Court asserting that Defendants committed constitutional and state law violations. Newman does not suggest that her name was included without her permission. In addition, Newman does not cite case law suggesting that an attorney may not be sanctioned under Rule 11 or any other source of sanctions authority if the time spent on the relevant lawsuit does not surpass an unidentified threshold. And Newman’s responsibility for any Rule 11 violation is not diminished based on where those working hours were spent (particularly during a global pandemic when many individuals were working remotely from home).
The same goes for Gregory Rohl, whose argument that he didn't spend much time on the lawsuit completely backfires.
To the extent Rohl asserts he should not be sanctioned because he read the pleading only on the day of its filing, the argument does not fly. Rule 11(b) “obviously require[s] that a pleading, written motion, or other paper be read before it is filed or submitted to the court,” and the Court finds it exceedingly difficult to believe that Rohl read an 830-page complaint in just “well over an hour” on the day he filed it. So, Rohl’s argument in and of itself reveals sanctionable conduct. Rule 11(b) also explains that, by presenting a pleading to the court, an attorney certifies that “to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances,” the complaint is not being filed for an improper purpose and is well-grounded in law and fact. The Court finds it even more difficult to believe that any inquiry Rohl may have conducted between the time he finished reading the Complaint and 11:48 p.m. could be described as a “reasonable” one.
Also sanctionable was the lawyers' refusal to dismiss the lawsuit once it had become moot. The legal theory cited isn't actually legal.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys maintain that this lawsuit was no longer moot after December 14 because three Plaintiffs subjectively believed that they had become electors. The attorneys cite no authority supporting the notion that an individual’s “[personal] opinion” that he or she is an elector is sufficient to support the legal position that the individual is in fact an elector. Of course, such a belief is contrary to how electors are appointed in Michigan.
This refusal resulted in more filings by those being sued, forcing them to expend time and money to address claims based on nothing more than speculation and a strong desire to return Trump to office. Very sanctionable.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in this case and their arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
And at this point, we're only halfway through the decision. I suggest you read the whole thing, but here are a few more highlights:
Apparently Throckmorton’s quotation of the maxim “fraud vitiates everything” is a refrain that has been oft-repeated on social media by those who question the results of the 2020 presidential election and believe Former President Trump should be declared the winner. The City is correct that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s citation to Throckmorton is puzzling, both because the case relates to a nineteenth-century land grant and has nothing to do with election law and because the Supreme Court held that the grant could not be collaterally attacked on the basis that the judgment was procured by fraud. Simply put, the case does not support Plaintiffs’ legal contentions directly or even by extension.
This is brief but brutal:
Plaintiffs alleged that certain acts or events violated the Michigan Election Code when, in fact, they did not.
The affidavits presented as evidence were just as garbage as the allegations:
To support the allegation that “unsecured ballots arrived at the TCF Center loading garage, not in sealed ballot boxes, without any chain of custody, and without envelopes, after the 8:00 PM Election Day deadline,” Plaintiffs quote the affidavit of Matt Ciantar (“Ciantar Affidavit”), which is a masterclass on making conjectural leaps and bounds.
In short, the affidavit describes Ciantar observing a vehicle delivering several bags to a post office. Everything else in it is the product of the affiant's overactive imagination. Ciantar felt the whole thing was "odd" and that the bags could have contained votes. That's it. The whole thing is included in the order, so feel free to vet the statement yourself (p. 71)
More on not doing due diligence:
When the Court asked whether Plaintiffs’ counsel inquired as to the affidavits copied and pasted from the other cases, Plaintiffs’ counsel dipped and dodged the question and did not disclaim the City’s counsel’s assertions that they did not.“[O]ther lawyers saw it” and “[t]hey believed it to be appropriate for submission to the Court in that circumstance,” Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued.
[...]
This is not okay. The Court remains baffled after trying to ascertain what convinced Plaintiffs’ counsel otherwise.
And then there's this hysterical First Amendment argument, which is capably dismantled by the judge.
In response to the State Defendants’ supplemental brief, instead of explaining what efforts they undertook to investigate the veracity of the affidavits, Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that they “never stated that lawyers cannot be held to account.” “Instead,” they argue, the motion to dismiss “justifies lawyers being afforded the same type of Constitutional protections as journalists,” “who . . . would lose the protection afforded to them by the Supreme Court . . . if they were ‘drawn into long court battles designed to deconstruct the accuracy of sources on which they rely.’”
Attorneys are not journalists. It therefore comes as no surprise that Plaintiffs’ attorneys fail to cite a single case suggesting that the two professions share comparable duties and responsibilities. Perhaps this confused understanding as to the job of an attorney, and what the law says about the attendant duties and obligations, is what led Plaintiffs’ counsel to simply copy and paste affidavits from prior lawsuits. Perhaps not. But what is certain is that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not escape accountability for their failure to conduct due diligence before recycling affidavits from other cases to support their pleadings here.
Apparently even doing a bit of Googling was beyond the capabilities of the many lawyers involved in this fiasco.
Even the most basic internet inquiry would have alerted Plaintiffs’ counsel to the wildly inaccurate assertions in Ramsland’s affidavit.
This isn't the end of the order, but it pretty much sums everything up.
Counsel’s failure to “look beyond their prejudices and political beliefs” during this litigation and before filing this lawsuit strongly suggests improper motive. The evidence of bad faith and improper motive becomes undeniably clear when paired with the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel violated Rule 11 in a multitude of ways. See supra. In other words, by failing to take the basic pre-filing steps that any reasonable attorney would have taken and by flouting well-established pleading standards—all while knowing the risk associated with failing to remain professionally skeptical, Plaintiffs’ counsel did everything in their power to ensure that their bias—that the election was fraudulent, as proclaimed by Former President Trump—was confirmed. Confirmation bias notwithstanding, Plaintiffs’ counsel advanced this lawsuit for an improper purpose and will be held to account for their actions.
Here's everyone that's affected by this sanction order, as listed on the Michigan attorney general's website:
Sidney Powell - Texas;
L. Lin Wood - Georgia;
Emily Newman - Virginia;
Julia Z. Haller - the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York and New Jersey;
Brandon Johnson - the District of Columbia, New York, and Nevada;
Scott Hagerstrom - Michigan;
Howard Kleinhendler - New York and New Jersey;
Gregory Rohl - Michigan; and
Stefanie Lynn Junttila - Michigan.
On top of this, other lawyers engaged in similar "election fraud" lawsuits are being hit with sanctions in Colorado. And the Texas Office of the Chief Disciplinary counsel is now looking into stripping Powell of her license.
Good. Fuck these guys. They decided to turn a sore loser's wild ass claims into legal proceedings, relying on a choir of the converted to provide supporting "evidence." And they refused to back down, even when the Department of Justice itself (while still headed by Bill Barr) found no evidence of election fraud. They played to the base and lost. They catered to conspiracy theorists and Trump loyalists that coalesced in a raid of the Capitol building in hopes of preventing certification of election results -- a raid that culminated in several deaths and several hundred criminal prosecutions.
Stunt lawyering has real consequences. These attorneys will now be paying the legal fees and costs incurred by the multiple Michigan government entities that were forced to defend themselves from this baseless lawsuit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: elections, fraud, kraken, lin wood, sanctions, sidney powell
Companies: dominion
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I hope this is not the end of their miseries, because I am sure they were willing cogs in the overall plan to overturn the election, culminating, when all legal avenues were blocked, in the insurrection of January 6. These suits were part of it, if not to win, then to provide raw meat for the base. Don't stop here TechDirt! The job's not done yet.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Ah the sweet schadenfreude of seeing liars and grifters told that abusing the legal system for personal gain does, if far too rarely, come with risks and costs.
These lawsuits were always nothing but PR stunts, playing to the liars and those they've conned because they refused to accept that their Dear Leader could ever lose and it's nice to see a judge drag them over the coals for it and make clear that they at least were not fooled and are not happy to have the legal system weaponized like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
They fucked around and found out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They tested their assumptions at their own convenience…and failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was going to vote this as the last word for star trek points but apparently it takes more than 15 credits lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorted, I decided to RTFM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
🎵 Oh, sweet schadenfreude of life, how I enjoy thee… 🎵
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of me thinks "Damn, that was harsh." But then the other part thinks "They pulled the trigger on this performative nonsense. They get what they deserve." I can't way for Ken White's take on the ATPL podcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... what were their contingency plans?
And also as listed in the final paragraph of the order. Note that they aren't simply being referred for discipline by bar authorities... they are being referred for discipline in every jurisdiction they practice in. Not in one district. Not in one state. Everywhere.
Richard Leibowitz, by comparison, was ordered to write "I will not commit fraud upon the court" 100 times on the classroom dockets, but not referred to disciplinary authority.
So, having bet big on Darth Cheeto and lost, I hope they are really good with the burger-flipping spatula.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From across the pond,
comes this article describing the cognitive dissonance that invades every statement made by these fools, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-31/fox-news-trump-lawyers-lawsuits-election-lies-four-corners/10 0419234
"She also rejected the assertion by government organisations tasked with verifying the election that it was the most secure ever.
"That's the propaganda they're putting out. I disagree with that completely, and we have and will produce additional evidence that shows otherwise."
Four Corners put it to her that she had shown no direct evidence of fraud, the affidavits she had produced were dodgy, and the witnesses she relied on had dubious credentials.
"That's your characterisation … You might as well be working for Dominion and Smartmatic," Ms Powell said."
Thanks to Rupert, Afghanistan got Trump's blessing to re-install the Taliban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From across the pond,
Just can't help but keeping shooting herself in the foot can she...
'It's opinion and therefore doesn't qualify as defamation, also I have iron-clad evidence that I haven't produced that shows that fraud and other illegal actions took place!'
I do love how weak her counter is there, responds to 'you haven't produced any actual evidence, what you have produced is decidedly questionable and your 'witnesses' are even worse' with 'that's just like... your opinion man'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From across the pond,
Thank you for that.
I found the packaged interview by Four Corners on You Tube and Above the Law also covered that interview and other Powell stories.
Finally, if you want to see how they edited the interview into the documentary series is in "Fox and the Big Lie" part 2 of 4, also on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did these "attorneys" believe L. A. Law was a documentary?
Check that, I'd take Harry Hamlin and Co. over this "elite strike force".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best news in years!
This is really as simple as being told, "Don't push the big red button!"
Yeah, they did. And, no Tangerine-in-chief around to pardon them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best news in years!
(more like mandarin-in-chief, not as big as a tangerine)
Federal pardons won't help with the state bar and judiciary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey blue, didn't you say that discovery will be fun? Where's the discovery ass-rape you promised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope this is not the end of their miseries, because I am sure they were willing cogs in the overall plan to overturn the election, culminating, when all legal avenues were blocked, in the insurrection of January 6. These suits were part of it, if not to win, then to provide raw meat for the base. Don't stop here TechDirt! The job's not done yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm unfamiliar with the legal process and admittedly too lazy to read the judgement. Do "sanctions" just mean that they have to pay the other side's legal bills, or are there additional consequences that they will face?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lazy read
All the defendants who meaningfully contributed to the defense to get paid, but not Davis since a) not a defendant, and b) not that helpful. All nine of the plaintiff's lawyers are ordered to 12 hours of remedial education with a essay addressed to the court required, and all lawyers are referred to all available disciplinary bodies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Sanctions to the court should have been about $10 million and revealing all sources of such funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Under the US Constitution, courts don't have power until disputes are brought to them. Since this case was resolved before an answer to the complaint was filed, there was no factual inquiry beyond the filings (discovery) which would have possibly revealed if there was third-party litigation funding. If there were such evidence and the lawsuit was directed by them for improper purpose, then sanctions could possibly be applied against them. (I think — I'm not qualified to offer legal advice.)
Even if there were, the sanctions available to the court against such real parties of interest is unlikely to exceed the costs of defending the case. (And PACs and other politically motivated persons and organizations can have deep pockets.) But regardless of the motivation of the real parties of interest, the people who did the real damage here were the lawyers who ignored their oaths and duties and consented to this propaganda and harassment effort disguised as litigation.
So the court will make them undo the only damage they can force them to undo and do its best to make sure they never do it again anywhere else. Even discounting the likelihood of disbarment for some, they all burned their reputation for seriousness in front of one of the most serious forums whose opinions grace the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
From Above the Law: "Kraken Bill Comes Due And It’s A Remarkably Reasonable $200K"
That's based on Doc 173 where the State of Michigan civil servants estimate costs as $21,964.75 and the City of Detroit's outside firm estimates a discounted $182,192 in Doc 174. Detroit got a 10% discount because the high volume of election litigation and the outside firm of Fink Bressack helpfully points out that over 60% of their costs were due to their work on the sanctions.
Had Powell gotten this to the Discovery phase, the legal fees would have skyrocketed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Part of the reason sanctions were justified is that the claims in the lawsuit could be easily debunked had any of the lawyers had the least bit of intellectual curiosity or attentiveness to their duty to reasonably investigate the claims prior to filing.
How easy, you ask? according to the [New York Times]() even one day would have been enough, even if you were Trump partisans:
And the New York Times has the 14 page memo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Part of the reason sanctions were justified is that the claims in the lawsuit could be easily debunked had any of the lawyers had the least bit of intellectual curiosity or attentiveness to their duty to reasonably investigate the claims prior to filing.
How easy, you ask? according to the New York Times even one day would have been enough, even if you were Trump partisans:
And the New York Times has the 14 page memo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
On September 8, in an attachment to Doc 174 the lawyers for the City of Detroit list charges which at a discounted rate total to $182,192.
From paragraph 9:
Today, two weeks later, the crowd of Sidney Powell and others object in Doc 175 make a reasonable sounding argument that they should not have to pay the $26,077.50 in costs and fees for the appeal -- not in proceedings at this District Court, at least. They also make the unreasonable case that the City of Detroit's bill should not exceed that of the State of Michigan defendants (whose lawyers are public servants).
But even their reasonable side has problems. Where did the $0.50 come from? Presumably they took the base rates of $325, $225 and $75 and reduced them by 10% to $292.50, $202.50 and $67.50 and then multiplied those reduced rates by the hours worked and totaled. But if that is so, it doesn't follow that they are entitled to that last $0.50 if the judge goes strictly by paragraph 9.
On the unreasonable side, they claim that:
No case law cited.
But the whole point of these sanctions is that the entire litigation was unreasonable due to actions of the Plaintiffs' lawyers. Moreover, in the cases cited, it was the Court's suspicion of hidden unreasonableness that led to a reduction of 5-10% for block billing. So they need more than to just point out the lawyers spent entire 8 and 11 hour days puzzling over this case.
Totally reasonable and as the 7 (or so) lawyers on the plaintiff side did not read the complaint and amended complaint with the scrutiny required by their Rule 11 duty, it follows that they are ill equipped to determine how many man-hours are needed to slog through those hundreds of pages.
Legal billing practices are foreign to me, but the concept of collaboration is not.
Finally, they seem to hit upon a small, certain win only to immediately undermine it:
If your opponent is contaminating the potential jury pool with their PR efforts, does not one have a professional responsibility to get ahead of Dame Rumor? OK, so perhaps there is no jury pool for a case before a Magistrate Judge, but it would be inconvenient if the anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) saber-rattling caused unnecessary grief to the City of Detroit.
Their own exhibit makes it clear it is 2 items, probably each billed at the minimum increment of 1/4 hour.
Sadly, I cannot find this reasonable either, because Plaintiffs' lawyers were wrong in so many, many ways. Naturally, taking time out to describe and argue every breach of duty is going to take some time, some research and some real money.
Once again, they are not the arbiters of what is reasonable. The City of Detroit contracted for these services and is on the hook for these charges which can only be called unreasonable in the same breath one blames the Plaintiff's attorneys for these expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
The Detroit News covered the above.
It didn't have any snark or opinion on the objection, but did point out that the author is lawyer for only Sidney Powell, Julia Haller, Brandon Johnson, Scott Hagerstrom, Howard Kleinhendler, and Gregory Rohl. L. Lin Wood, Emily Newman, and Stefanie Lynn Junttila may yet file something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
Unrelated to the above, but perhaps a post hoc justification for lawyers reading the news, is that Sidney Powell claims two deaths were murders to cover up election fraud. Based on less than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
At the very end of the attachment to Doc 174, a spreadsheet totals the three categories and it from here the extra $0.50 came from. But if all the numbers are truncated to the whole dollar amount in the ask in paragraph 9, it follows that you can't ask the judge to reduce by that $0.50, already removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2nd,3rd OBJECTIONS: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
In Doc 176 Emily Newman also objects to the City of Detroit's lawyers billing for appellate costs. We also get the novel argument that the number of hours the City's lawyers bill for should not exceed the 57.8 hours which the Michigan state attorneys used. And then there's the novel argument that hours spent arguing for sanctions that were awarded were not hours spent toward defending a case.
Further, Newman finds fault that the annotations and retractions carving up the billing record into three categories of asked-for reimbursement was made “done well after the activity occurred.” as will happen when a billing practice suitable for one purpose is repurposed to a court order which happened months laser.
In Doc 177 L. Lin Wood's attorney also argues against paying for the appeal and the sanctions. Case law is cited that “only those fees which directly resulted from the sanctionable conduct’ should be awarded under Rule 11. But the court has other authority to levy fees. So when addressing the courts other authority, the requested reimbursement wrong under Rule 11 is twisted to be “punitive” and thus ill advised. ha ha!
Lin Wood's attorney tries to argue against the rate, but adopts "median" or "average" as the only "reasonable" rate. Clearly, that is not a reasonable position informed by the experts in statistics.
And so Lin Wood's demand is to limit payment to the City of Detroit to what the state lawyers billed as state employees despite the same economic survey clearly pointing out the private/public wage gap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2nd,3rd OBJECTIONS: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
Law and Crime covered this in a story entitled Sidney Powell and Others Want to Pay Less Than $44,000 in Sanctions After Trying to Overturn the 2020 Election
It refers to all three objections. I like this part:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All this time we thought Powell was saying she was going to release the Kraken but it turns out what she was saying was “release the crackhead.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AKA Mike Lindell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey now, that’s not fair!
We don’t know for sure whether Lindell’s drug of choice is crack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.
The Court remains baffled after trying to ascertain what convinced Plaintiffs’ counsel otherwise."
The court might want to pull its collective head out of the sand and take a quick peek at how screwed up the judiciary is right now.
DoJ lawyer tells a jury reasonable doubt isn't a thing in open court & gets a tiny correction. This case was about holding people responsible for the actions of others that there was no evidence they knew of or participated in.
Just because my husband is using this high profile case, that is a complete clusterfuck, in his self promotional materials to be reelected is no reason for me to recuse myself from this case.
The MEGA trial & the rulings that a non-citizen, living outside of the US, not just giving up his rights & coming to a country that made it clear they already found him guilty was him fleeing from the law.
The FBI creating home grown terrorists, with IQ's under 75, while ignoring those men in bed sheets carrying burning tiki torches towards that nice black families home.
Accusations based on 1 millisecond of data from and untested/verified box (that they literally deleted the code to avoid review) is a completely legit reason to abridge a persons rights, because the lawyers 'said so'.
Each and every 1-800-Lawsuit.
A decade of extortion with the courts blessing, many more millions than they knew about.
The ADA extortion mills spinning up.
Suing the deepest pockets for peoples poor decisions.
A lawsuit getting to a 2nd Amended complaint where the best evidence offered was her listing her dog as a witness to her having seen someone on the street, who was in the same school in the same town. For billions...
Nunes/Bliss
Perhaps if the courts stopped pretending that the lawyers would have NEVER EVER filed a pointless lawsuit & look for any reason to not punish them for obvious antics... QI is for cops not lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'If we ignore them that means the don't exist.'
Come now, courts can't start regularly calling out lawyers for lying and abusing the legal system for personal gain, why if they did that the public might start to lose any trust in the legal system and start thinking that it's broken and beyond trivial to exploit.
Much better to just ignore it and continue to pretend that lawyers and/or their clients would never abuse the system for personal gain/vindictiveness until they truly go above and beyond in doing so and it's no longer feasible to look the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'If we ignore them that means the don't exist.'
I guess I am just jaded.
I'm designed not to be trusted & have to earn the trust people put into me.
Imagine the havoc I could cause if those in authority just accepted me at my word without question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courts involved in election fraud coverup!
Big state liberal judges try stifling the free speech of lawyers fighting for election integrity because they are afraid of the truth coming out! You won't get justice in the courts, bring your own gallows to the reckoning like in old times!
You know this is going to come. The lunatics reside over their own court of public opinion, and modern media means they can even mobilise it into action by talking inside its bubble without the message getting diluted while spreading.
Media are the key to bringing the U.S. to its knees. Why fly planes into skyscrapers if you can kill dozens of millions by spreading vaccine misinformation from abroad? Why bring your own army if you can mobilise the U.S. against itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courts involved in election fraud coverup!
David wrote:
Is Michigan supposed to be a big state?
Michigan is ranked 10th in population, which means 50% of the country lives in a state with a larger population.
David wrote:
Lawyers have plenty of free speech, outside the litigation privilege. Inside the courtroom and in their legal filings, lawyers have to follow the rules of the court and the legal profession.
According to 6th circuit precedent in Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (2005) :
I don't know if the author of those words, Judge Alice Batchelder, was a liberal judge or not, but Reagan twice nominated her to the District Court and she was nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court by Bush in 1991. So I doubt it.
David wrote:
None of the nine lawyers sanctioned in the King v. Whitmer case discussed above was "fighting for election integrity," but rather the opposite. In the complaint they explicitly asked, not for a true and valid count of the votes but instead “[a]n order requiring Governor Whitmer to transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election.” (Doc 1, page 73)
David wrote:
Judge Parker doesn't appear afraid of the truth and had a long hearing in which none of the nine lawyers took any responsibility to ensure the truth was on their side.
David wrote:
Advocating lynching is more likely to see you face the courts than to obtain anything resembling true justice.
David wrote:
The lynch mob idea was so January Sixth. I think you are living in the "old times."
David wrote:
Calling people names for the affront of asking for evidence before deciding that a crime happened is hardly likely to get them to leave their realm of facts for your evidence-free bubble. If you want to convince us, use actual facts and actual arguments based on actual laws, please.
David wrote:
You are using mass media to attempt to communicate your viewpoint. This site is using mass media to advocate one should base their viewpoint on facts and a love of the First Amendment and certain suspicion that delegating tech to the control of companies is giving up an important freedom.
Is the problem mass media or a population of self-satisfied, ignorant and gullible who base which inputs they accept on tribalism and not which inputs are the best?
David wrote:
Most internal sources of vaccine and election misinformation are not trying to kill people but to gain an audience of the gullible and easily persuadable.
David wrote:
Which is why conservatives should be more suspicious of news sources that employ people who simultaneously work for a foreign government-funded propaganda source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A guide for the easily confused
Here is a breakdown of the post you were replying to in such detail that you were unable to look at more than a single phrase at a time, feeling you had to fight every word of it after reading just the headline without bothering to understand what it was saying.
Headline and first paragraph of what you were replying to were voicing the likely alt-right response to the sanctioning. All the rest was commentry on what such a response means in the current political climate.
Your wildly thrashing indiscriminate response is exactly the kind of mindless reaction that the alt-right media and/or terrorist and lynch mob curators are living from: get people up in arms first and striking out and then you can get what you want into harm's way and they'll hit it even if it is actually against their own interest to do so.
The Powells and Lynns of this world don't use sarcasm tags. Engage your brain before reacting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A guide for the easily confused
But if I hadn't done this, I would not have known that 50% of the US lives in 9 states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A guide for the easily confused
The discrepancy is on the rise because less populous areas tend to lean towards voting Republican, and more populous areas tend to lean towards voting Democratic.
Now Republican governors are enacting health policies that are predominantly killing people in the more populous districts, thus shifting the balance of the state back towards leaning Republican. But since this kind of electoraticide happens predominantly in the already more sparsely populated Republican states, the population imbalance is increased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A guide for the easily confused
You should use quotes then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courts involved in election fraud coverup!
I have no idea why that even matters.
The “free speech of lawyers” with regards to speech made in or to court is severely constrained by law. You can’t just say whatever you want in a court of law.
By fighting to overturn a just and fair election and ignoring laws and facts that went against their preconceived notions?
Nope. The truth is already out. People like you are just too deluded to accept it.
You mean like lynching? Like happened to black people all the time? Is that justice?
That would be you.
That’s actually free speech in action, you know.
I agree. These anti-vaxxers have a lot to answer for. I just don’t see what that has to do with this topic.
Again, I agree, but likely for a very different reason, and I don’t see how this helps your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soo..., hang Mike Pence?
Yep, Trump is gonna be reinstated any minute... ehm, month, now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A paragraph of satire just is too long for modern attention spans. I need to learn to condense it into a single sentence or less. If people were able to focus for longer than 3 seconds, Powell at all would not be a thing in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Poe's law strikes again... If you write satirical posts these days, flagging them as satire is necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election fraud conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell pressed by Australian reporter: 'Do you ever hear yourself and think it sounds ridiculous?'
YouTube of ABC Show "Fox and the Big Lie" Part 2 of 4 watch?v=gWJhqOPe6rw
Sidney Powell @ 2:37-3:15 / 30:21-31:15 / 33:05-37:16
Mike Lindell @ 11:35-11:55
Janine Pirro @ 17:20-19:38
Howard Kleinhendler @ 25:38-26:13
(Smartmatic Lawyer) Eric Connolly @ 26:50-27:44 / 28:30-29:22 / 29:50-30:20 / 31:24-32:00 / 32:28-32:54 / 39:22-39:29
Giuliani @ 27:48-28:08 / 29:24-29:49
Tucket Carlson @ 37:17:37:37
Just the Powell Interview watch?v=txyWDAJzCZk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Unfortunate Reality
The sad truth is that these sanctions only really hurt their legal careers--but since they've chosen the new career of being MAGA-hat wearing conspiracy spreaders, they can grift that gravy train as long as anyone will listen to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to change your wording
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinate d-sources-2021-08-20/
Reality check. Like all the other violent protests of the last few years things simply turned the way they did.
That happens when people passionately gather on a shared thought. In the 1/6 case, the potential loss of a loved president.
It was a “peaceful protest” that turned to a violent riot.
And before anyone brings up ‘hang Mike pence’ I point out all the ‘death to all cops’ signs of BLM and Antmen protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to change your wording
It really didn't take you all that long to finally return to a state of "Jan 6th wasn't bad and you can't blame the rioters", did it?
Lostinlodos isn't a Trump fanboy and he doesn't support violent Republicans but he will break his back to suck his own cock in self-righteous outrage if anyone dares to potentially hurt their feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to change your wording
Good job completely ignoring the fact that one set of protesters was angry about you know...all the murders committed by the people they are angry about, and the other is angry that their orange wanna be king lost an election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Sure Portland and Chicago and Seattle, all people angry about the tiny minority percentage of bad cops. So they loot stores, burn property, throw deadly fireworks at people. Take over a multi-block area with rifles, hold residents hostage. Day after day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Burn a federal court house, assault innocent bystanders, empty a store to bare walls.
All kicked off because a bad cop killed a bad criminal over an old dispute in broad daylight.
Vs a random, but angry crowd, demanding their right to petition the government, who became angry when denied.
Two years of violence, murder, arson, looting, acts of terrorism, grand larceny, sand systemic violence against anyone who didn’t bow down to them and lick their toes,
Vs angry, but generally non-violent, protest at the capital that culminated in rioting by a few individuals who broke the law.
You break the law you break the law. Period. And law breakers should be punished! Be the BLM, Antmen, republicans, or men in blue.
The moment you call out a single member of those left wing protesters I’ll happily discuss with you the charging of the criminals of the 6th.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
I live in downtown Seattle, please tell me what you think happened there, and I will tell you that you are completely wrong.
And as to the percentage of bad cops, it is statistically impossible to be a tiny minority, as any cop who refuses to turn in and report the bad cop in their department, is just as bad as the bad cop. period. There are some good cops, but the majority are racist fuckers who are on a constant power trip.
You live in your Fox news world that went so far as photoshopped an image of an armed person in front of CHOP that didn't actually exists. And stupid fuckers like you believed it. Nothing that you said actually happened. I can attest to it first hand.
Actually not you stupid fucker, that incident was the proverbial straw that broke the black person's back. It was just the latest example of cops killing black people over things that should never resort to an extrajudicial death penalty.
That were fed a lie about the election being stolen, instigated by the former fucking president and his sycophants that were there to disrupt the one part of democracy that matters the most, the peaceful transfer of power between presidents. The Trump fucker lost!!!!
They were not there to petition the gov't, they were there to use violence to overthrow the gov't. Or did you not see the gallows that were built and all of them who forced their way into the capitol building using violence yelling "Hang Mike Pence"
That you refuse to accept that, tells me you live in an alternate reality that still believes that Trump will be re-instated any day now. And you are probably pillow buds with Mike Lindell.
That is a perfect explanation of the Proud Boys, the 3 percenters, the KKK, and all other right-wing fuck jobs that use violence in order to force their ideas on everybody else. It has been documented time and time again that the largest terrorist threat in this country is right-wing domestic terror groups.
And do you realize that the majority of the violence and destruction during BLM protests were orchestrated by the same right-wing groups that I just referenced.
At what point during the BLM protests did the protesters use violence to break into the US capitol building with the purpose of killing congress members and wanted to actually hang the vice president of our country for the sole purpose of being angry that your fucking loser of a president didn't win the election. And do not give me any fucking shit about the election being stolen, because even Trump's fucker Bill Barr, head of the DOJ, said it wasn't stolen. And the fucking supreme court even said the same thing. So the election was not stolen you fucking fucker.
You are just another fucking stupid idiot who lives in an alternate reality and loves Trump because he gives credence to your racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic beliefs.
All I can say, FUCK OFF YOU PIECE FUCKING OF SHIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Explain all the calls to news from scared residents held hostage in chop!
Your view of law is noted. Clearly anti-authority.
“ You live in your Fox news world”
Yet my relatives called us afraid to leave home.
“ proverbial straw that broke the black person's back. ”
If you say so.
“ cops killing black people over things that should never resort to an extrajudicial death penalty.”
Stop running? Don’t flee the scene. Stop when told to stop? How about a black man or woman calling out the majority of criminal law being black? When the do the Uncle Tom nonsense comes out.
“ That were fed a lie”
If you actually believe everyone there was there over election fraud your a gullible fool.
There’s more to the entire issue as a whole in the last two elections.
Like the fact that large populations in small areas dictate to large areas of small populations.
Or one size fits all
Or do as I say, not as I do.
They were not there to petition the gov't,
Your an ignorance MSNBCNN bubble fool.
https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-no-evidence-capitol-155003169.html
What happened was spontaneous.
Hang -> how about kill all cops, death to the badge…. Etc
“ re-instated any day now”
No. But likely to be re-elected if he runs.
Mike Lindell? The fucker who sells foreign sourced products. Of inferior comfort?
“ That is a perfect explanation of the” Black Lives Matter riots nation wide.
“ violence and destruction during BLM protests were orchestrated by”
Prove that with factual evidence. If the FBI, CIA, and DHS couldn’t, feel free to try.
“ At what point during the BLM protests did the protesters use violence to break into the US capitol building with the purpose of killing congres”
They didn’t. Instead they caused billions of dollars in damages and cost hundreds of lives across the nation.
Sure your not STS? All the fucks and the binary view of politics is usually his method.
Feel free to point out my every saying the election was fraudulent.
Any time, further than my questioning counts in the following 72 hours. I’m waiting…!
I never said the election was fraudulent. I always blamed the fake stories and intentional lack of proper coverage of news to be the cause of election results. Not once did I say it was fraud.
loves Trump because he gives credence to your racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic beliefs.
Nice. post an example where any you that lines up in reality with me you single minded simple minded left wing loon.
Black lover, residency visa for Japan, pansexual, see Japan, actions.
Waiting!
Or is it you just refuse to accept that non-republicans turned their backs to Uber-rich communist dictators like Clinton and Biden?
You still think 2016 was stolen so you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
First, you must be fucking idiot... Please learn how to properly quote text.
Because they were too busy looking at fake fox news pictures of armed people in front of CHOP. I was there you fucker... and you know what most people were doing, smoking pot and singing kum ba yah.
So, when does running or fleeing the scene or not stopping require an extra judicial death sentence?
Keep in mind, George Floyd was killed because he allegedly had a fake $20 bill. Please tell me where that requires a death sentence.
Or would you prefer that the cops just kill all black people you fucking racist.
Do you have the same thing to say about Ashli Babbitt? She was told to stop, but didn't, and was shot and killed in order to protect members of congress.
Ummmmm, considering they were all there to "Stop the Steal", then yes, it was about fake election fraud. If it wasn't, please enlighten us on what they were really doing there?
You fucking republicans love to use that excuse. Empty land doesn't vote. I don't care how few people live in an area, the majority vote should be the winning vote no matter how densely or sparsely populated an area is.
Why do fuckers like you have to make shit up? Where did I say anything about MSNBC / CNN? You fucking idiot. Not once did I say I watch MSNBC / CNN, but you had to make up this fictional version of me to fit your fucked up narrative.
Nice straw man you fucker. Not once did I say anything about it being coordinated. but you know what, there was plenty of coordination amongst the right-wing fuckers such as the proud boys. That is way most of them are being charged with conspiracy.
So you are OK with right-wing fuckers hanging the vice president? Wow, what a hill to die on. The statements "kill all cops", "death to the badge" does not attack the actual democracy that makes this country. But attacking the capitol, wanting to kill congress members and hanging the vice president is allowed? WOW you have some fucked up views.
I am not going to spend my time pulling out the 100s of cases of right wing violence, but I will give you this to chew on:
Man who helped ignite George Floyd riots identified as white supremacist: Police
So there's that.
Provide the proof that there were billions of dollars in damages directly attributed to BLM. And again, your statements insinuate that you are fine with members of congress and the vice president being killed as long as it fits your political views. But those damn BLM protesters, that's the real problem. Again, wow you have some fucked up views.
The fact that you don't believe that the Jan 6 riots were there to kill members of congress and overthrow the peaceful transfer of power tells me that you believe that what was being done was justifiable. And since they were there to "stop the steal" then what else can one conclude other then you believe that Trump won.
Because you support trump, and trump is a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic asshole. In other words, how can you support a person like that unless you agree and embrace his racist, xenophobic, etc, etc, etc views. Simple deduction.
Nice way to show your racism. See my sentence above.
And Yes, I am a black lover, and a brown lover, and a lover of all races and skin colors.
But what the fuck are you talking about with "residency visa for Japan, pansexual, see Japan, actions?" I mean, thats just fucking lunacy coming from you, fucking lunatic.
Please provide verifiable proof that Clinton and Biden are communist dictators? And where did I say that I liked either one of them... It's just you making shit up again. I never liked Hillary, and Biden is not who I wanted to be president, but a fucking lab rat would have made a better president then the orange fucker.
Again, why do you have to make shit up? I never said anything of the sort, but somehow you think those are my beliefs. QUIT MAKING SHIT UP YOU FUCKER!
It's like you have to make shit up about me in order to have some sort of argument, but with made up shit.
Again, FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
“ Please learn how to properly quote text.”
[quote] text [/quote]
{q} text {q}
Q/ text
Proper quoting doesn’t work.
“ So, when does running or fleeing the scene or not stopping require an extra judicial death sentence?”
At the moment? When they suddenly turn around. And point something in the dark.
Most of us support less lethal measures.
I clearly stated the floyd case was an Illegal act. Criminal Floyd was killed by a cop he had long standing issues with. He went to jail.
“ Or would you prefer that the cops just kill all black people you fucking racist.”
I’d prefer they were all armed with less lethal round.
Your inability to separate supporting the law from racism is now t something I can fix for you.
“ Do you have the same thing to say about Ashli Babbitt?”
Yes. After a user posted clear video of the situation. I did.
And just like all police I once again say they should be armed with less lethal rounds.
“ considering they were all there to "Stop the Steal"”
That was the motto. Many believed the election fraud claims. Many more question if it was the case.
Most wanted to stop the process until things were verified.
“ You fucking republicans”
Libertarian
Empty land doesn't vote.
Farmers do. And you city people should remember what happens when city laws ignore the people not in the city who make your life possible.
“CNN”
“And do you realize that the majority of the violence and destruction during BLM protests were orchestrated by the same right-wing groups that I just referenced.”
Not once has any evidence been shown of right wing orchestrated insertion in blm protests. That’s something the left wing media invented.
Remove Carolina, which was a counter protest, and you have no evidence.
You simply refuse to admit that your co-protesters like Antifa are simply anrco-terrorists.
“So you are OK with right-wing fuckers hanging the vice president?”
How did you get that? Such signs, hang Mike pence, kill pigs, such signs are incitement to violence and should be prosecuted.
“does not attack the actual democracy”
No, they encourage illegal acts. And should be punished.
… and we’re a republic, not a democracy.
“Prove that with factual evidence.”
I can’t. I didn’t claim it was preplanned. Like the capital it simply happened. It’s called the domino effect.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-looting-michigan-avenue-gold-coast-violence/6363471/
Nice link you post. Everyone who commute criminal acts did so of their own accord and should be punished. A white man breaking a window doesn’t account for millions of people across the country walking away with stolen property. Tossing fire bombs. Overturning vehicles. Etc.
Every law breaker should be punished.
“directly attributed to BLM”
If it happened during a protest and involved any of the protestors, …
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-protests-police-violence.html
“And again, your statements insinuate that you are fine with members of congress and the vice president being killed as long as it fits your political views.”
Not in any way shape or form. Only an ignorant blind fool would take a blanket condemnation of violence and deduce it only applied to one side.
“The fact that you don't believe that the Jan 6 riots were there to kill members of congress”
They weren’t
“overthrow the peaceful transfer of power”
See, more of that left wing media crap. Waiting, and verification, isn’t an overthrow. Nor is demanding it.
But that doesn’t change the fact that everyone who went beyond the rotunda lobby, that they were allowed into, is a criminal who should be prosecuted.
“there to "stop the steal" then what else can one conclude other then you believe that Trump won.”
Some just wanted transparency and verification of the process. Not a rush to reach an artificial deadline.
“Because you support trump, and trump…” the rest has zero incontestable evidence.
Well, excluding misogynistic. That’s hard to deny.
Yes, I supported trump as my better choice of the alternative in the last two elections.
“Nice way to show your racism. See my sentence above.”
You’re a bit slow eh?
“And Yes, I am…”
Oh, you can’t read without a full sentence. I have, I am, etc.
I have Black lover, I have residency visa for Japan, I am pansexual, see Japan.
I fit none of your classifications.
“Please provide verifiable proof that Clinton and Biden are communist dictators?”
Communism requires a centralised dictatorship that then doles out to the masses.
If you don’t think the likes of Clinton, Pelosi, Biden, would do as president what they did in congress, take from the 95%, give to the top 1% and the bottom 4%. But not from us, rules for the, not for me.
“Again, why do you have to make shit up?”
I didn’t, I asked a question.
I prefer to fuck on, not off. Btw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Farmers do. And you city people should remember what happens when city laws ignore the people not in the city who make your life possible.
Ahh yes...making my life possible. Are you aware of how much of my taxes went to these 'people who make my life possible' because of the last asshole's 'easy to win trade war?'
The only reason these poor fools have anything is because of subsidies. And let's face it, it's not like THEIR broke asses are paying for it.
But you be you, just like those simple minded rubes. Keep on voting against your own best interests because us goddamn city folks are just itching to ruin your country welfare checks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
“ Are you aware of how much of my taxes went to these 'people who make my life possible'”
Less than you think. The majority of tax funding goes into social products and the majority of that distribution goes to large cities.
It’s a self perpetuating circle. Raise taxes to fund projects for the poor. Raise taxes to fund projects. More people become poor due to tax rates and inflation. Raise funding rates for projects for the poor, raise taxes to create funds…..
The intent is good.
The implementation is not.
That’s how I look at trump’s trade war. But I don’t see how that has any effect on your city. Outside of construction.
The trade tariffs on China did little to food, electric, or communications rates.
“ because us goddamn city folks are just itching to ruin your country welfare checks.”
I’ll continue to vote for the second amendment and domestic focus. That comes with a lot of junk baggage as well, just like your choices do. But maybe some day we’ll get a real choice.
Probably not though.
Even when we finally see “HOPE” like Obama offered us, some how the entrenched power still ruins things.
I had hope trump was outside enough, and rich enough, to not fall into pay to play. And he didn’t.
He made a lot of dumb decisions, and a lot of great ones.
I’m still waiting for a hint of good from Biden. But so far all I see is one botched failure or dumb bill signing after another.
While he’s not to blame for the stupidity coming out of congress he doesn’t have to sign that crap either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
I’ll continue to vote for the second amendment and domestic focus
Yeah, I really don't think the second amendment is going to do you any good if the shit hits the fan. I really wouldn't bet on guns being all that useful, especially when you consider that military-grade equipment's been finding its way into law enforcement for decades now. Good luck with your rights.
and a lot of great ones.
Oh? Like what, pray tell!
But so far all I see is one botched failure or dumb bill signing after another.
I'm guessing you mean Afghanistan and not vaccination rates...because if you feel vaccination rates are inflated, (or deflated,) or some state of inflation (or deflation) in between is Biden's fault, I'd say you've underestimated the average stupidity of the unvaccinated by choice.
If you mean Afghanistan, I'm fine with leaving like we did. It was a stupid war, with a pipe dream that was never going to happen. And pulling out will save so much money! That money could go to Amuricuns who aren't from Afghanistan, no? I mean, immigrants bad, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your word
Uh, I just Like the ability to eat what I want.
Protection from some fuck crawling through my window is a bonus.
Well, the border wall for one.
We had a viable exit from Afghanistan that Biden threw away
We were less than two years away from total energy independence.
…
“Vax”
Biden inherited trumps plan. You will not change my opinion on that so move on.
Wrong. America is a nation of immigrants. I wouldn’t be talking to you now if it for immigration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
Well, the border wall for one.
The one Mexico paid for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change y
Nope, paid for and built by Americans. I didn’t care who built it. Or when. Given Obama and Bush II both promised it as well.
Someone finally got it started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to chan
Bush II promised a fence, and it was started and completed while he was in office. Obama promised no wall or additional fencing.
Trump mostly just replaced some of what was already there and wanted to expand it. He also wanted a sturdy wall and not just fencing, but that didn’t happen. It also has clearly done nothing to reduce undocumented immigrants from entering the US, so…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to
Obama constantly called for border security.
And the Trump era wall, well, that’s not the cause of the massive amount of people Illegally entering. It’s where the wall isn’t at, and the fact we can’t arrest and deport under current regulations.
People walk around the wall in most cases. Or drive around it.
Or climb over or under chain link sections.
The wall definitely reduced crossings where it is built.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time
If the total number of undocumented immigrants did not decrease, that means the wall isn’t actually doing anything. And since that number has not gone down, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are crossing where the “wall” was built.
And “border security” =/= a physical barrier at the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How ye forget:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats -vote-border-wall-2006/
But also we can look at
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/01/debbie-wasserman-schultz/more-border-secu rity-and-patrols-under-obama-previ/
A wall need not be solid. A line of fence is also a wall.
And there’s plenty of video evidence of him
Using the term “wall” in more than one instance, including a state of the union address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to chan
Except that Trump was the one who made the Mexican-paid aspect a cornerstone of his election promises. Which he failed to deliver on.
This is why nobody believes you when you keep making these "I'm not a Republican" claims, when any time their reputation might be at risk you run back to them like a beaten wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
Not really. I’m not saying Biden couldn’t have done better, but Trump made things worse by freeing imprisoned members of the Taliban.
Not really. Is this about the Keystone XL Pipeline? Because almost none of that oil was going to be sold in the states, and it was coming from a Canadian company drilling in Canada. It was going to be piped from Canada to Louisiana, where it would be packaged and shipped to other countries via the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. It would also not be the sort of oil used for gasoline, which is the form of oil used most to generate energy (as opposed to lubrication or making plastics). That would not have helped our energy independence one iota.
Plus, outside of gasoline (which, again, the Keystone XL pipeline would not have helped with), oil isn’t used to produce much energy in the US. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewable resources are far more commonly used for energy here outside of gas-powered devices, and those can be replaced with electric-powered versions. Going for that seems like a better way to achieve energy independence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change y
While I wasn’t referring to the KSP shutting that down well into build was as dome and politically self serving as ending wall construction.
we had renewed use of clean(we) coal.
Arctic drilling, and NWS drilling.
All ended immediately under Biden.
The most logical thing to do is use what we have until a replacement is implemented. Not turn off and shut down and hope the replacements come soon…enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change y
"Fossil Fuels" and "Energry Independence" are mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change y
The sole purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline was to save the oil companies money by cutting thousands of trucking jobs. It wouldn't get oil anywhere it wasn't already getting where it was needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
I’m just stating this for the record, but Trump had no plan for vaccine distribution. He also hindered the whole thing by minimizing the importance of stopping COVID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Well, considering you are too fucking stupid to figure out how to properly quote here, for as long as you have been here, and for as many comments you post, I finally realized that you have your head so far up Trump's ass that you no longer see what reality is like for the rest of us.
At this point, there is no longer any reason to engage with you just because of your sheer stupidity.
But, since I am a fairly decent person, I will let you in on a little secret:
When you start a new comment or reply, look 👇 (down, in case you don't understand that emoji) where you see "Comment Options", specifically at the radio button option "Use markdown." Notice something different about the word markdown? It's different because it is what's called a "hyperlink" or just "link" for short. If you click on that word, which is a link to a separate document, it will open in a new tab / window and provides instructions on how to use markdown in order to add some common HTML/CSS styles to your post.
When I am quoting text from other people, like I did at the beginning of this comment, I use the "> Blockquote" method in order to differentiate my text from the quoted text and just normal italicized text.
So, if you want to quote this sentence of mine, like so:
Precede it with a '>' greater than character, making sure that the '>' greater than character is the very first character on that line:
>So, if you want to quote this sentence of mine, like so:
There, I did my good deed for the day, and taught somebody how to do simple quoting using markdown as supported on this site. I hope you were able to understand this topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Looks like that works.
This is the Only site I use where bbs markup doesn’t work.
Bbs bold and italic codes worked here so I just gave up.
The markup/markdown is mixed on that page.
There’s BBS/Doc (not Unix tdc, not Microsoft)
! And > come from RTF, as do the list commands.
Not sure where the
codecommand comes from.I’m older than some users here, and have some holdover faults from BBS and time-share commands.
I’ve always seen [code]code[/code] or |code| |code|
Or just c instead of code.
Interesting. Know what the language is called? Or is it just a mashup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
That's how it works!!! Now it will be much easier to grok your posts to find out what are quotes and what are your responses.
Most likely because this is a Wordpress site. I am not familiar enough with word press nor what comment systems are available, but I would imagine that it is the preference of the site admin and / or the comment system being used.
It comes from being able to include code listings such that the structure of the code (indents, tabs, etc) stay intact, just as one would see when viewing in an editor. If you spend any time on GitHub you will see how useful it is.
I am in the same boat as you with age, my teenage years were spent on an Apple //c dialing into BBS systems (using old school techniques to avoid long-distance bills) and sharing games and programs. I used that same //c to dial into a unix shell account for my first internet access, a number of years before the WWW existed. But I have also managed to progress with technology, and quite often disprove the idiom about teaching old dogs new tricks.
Markdown
So you were able to figure it out. I'll try not to be so hard on you next time... ok, maybe not, but hey, this is an anonymous comment system, it's not like anyone of us here take what is being said as nothing more than hyperbole, with nuggets of truth and fiction intermixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
It’s used on YouTube as well, but more importantly, the comment box explicitly says you either use markdown or use plain text. There is no option to use markup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your word
I don’t usually comment on YouTube. And I’ve never used anything but plain text.
As for markup and markdown:
The terms have long been generic.
They’re generally interchangeable.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24041/markdown-vs-markup-are-they-related
A nice link there though shows I wasn’t off on my assessment of the sourcing. 😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown#Example
Much of markdown shares the prior conventions.
Markdown appears to share much with BBCode. Which predates it by half a decade.
BBCode is condensed from RTF and ETF. Both mid-late 80s.
Those from IBM extended ASCII and the PGT tools.
That from ANSI
I know Skypix also existed but never really looked into it.
Not that any of this is a direct chain of evolution, but understanding where it comes from helps understand what it is.
I can clearly see both BBCode and in big M Markdown.
Point? Quote was the only command I couldn’t get to work with my prior known markup. So I simply ignored it. Never really thought much of using the chart. Lol.
Look, we both learned something today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Stop running? Don’t flee the scene. Stop when told to stop?
You know, I feel the same about Ashli Babbitt. Had she complied, she might still be alive, sitting in jail wondering how her life went so fucking wrong. Perhps pondering why she threw her life away for such an asshole. Right along with the rest of the idiots who thought Trump would pardon them.
If you actually believe everyone there was there over election fraud your a gullible fool.
So then what else were they there for? To hang Mike Pence? To kill Nancy Pelosi? Or are you just going to say they broke through the windows and used bear mace on police, just like normal tourists routinely do? I love the choice of the word 'gullible' in your sentence. It just reeks, nay fucking STINKS of projection. Gotta love you fuckwits saying 'obey the police' out of one side of your mouths while yelling 'Fuck you guys, you can't even call yourself American,' or 'This nigger voted for Joe Biden.' out the other.
There's a specific reason I chose those two shit nuggets to comment on. Hypocrites like you can fuck off with your horse dewormer and Jewish space lasers right to fucking hell. Your abject stupidity is a drain on society, and my only regret is that Covid hasn't taken enough of you simple minded morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
“ You know, I feel the same about Ashli Babbitt. Had she complied, she might still be alive, sitting in jail”
Yes, I agree.
“ So then what else were they there for?”
For some it was to stop the count. For others to postpone it till recounts and audits had finished. For a few it was commit acts of anarchism.
For most it was nothing more than a protest. To be heard and seen.
The assault and riot wasn’t any pre-planed operation.
It was a spontaneous rise in the protestors.
The only “ projection” here is you making clear anyone who disagrees with you is a racist neo nazi christian alt right q.
I’m none of those. And despise them as groups.
“ horse dewormer and Jewish space lasers”
Huh?
“ Covid hasn't taken enough of you simple minded morons.”
Hopefully I won’t get covid. I’m double vaxed and use a mask. Anyone who isn’t vaxed and is maskless gets what they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
There were no reasons for recounts and audits. The states had already done everything required by law in order to certify their results, including recounts in some states. There was no evidence anywhere of widespread voter fraud, and the few cases that were found, were almost all people using dead relatives to vote twice for Trump.
Republican official in Ohio faces charge for voting twice in November election
Pennsylvania Trump supporter charged with voter fraud
Trump Encourages People in North Carolina to Vote Twice, Which Is Illegal
The only reason people were there and perpetrating violence was because they were told to do so by Trump and his sycophants, following the big lie that there was widespread election fraud which he was encouraging for his own votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
How you take march “peacefully” as a call for violence, I’ll never understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Trump's rhetoric alone may not have called out for specific acts of violence, but there was nothing in his speech that called for a peaceful march.
And when you add the words of his sycophants, "Take names and kick asses", "Trial by combat", "We're coming for you" (in reference to GOP congress members who were not going along with the big lie).
There have also been several comments on this site alone that specifically detail the words that Trump used that, people with a lesser grasp of reality, could easily understand to mean "engage in violence". (IE "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness")
Just look at the defense being used by some of the Jan 6 insurrectionists and how often they said "Trump sent us."
Somehow, you are blind to reality and have to create this alternate "Trump Universe" of reality in order to be able to defend him and his sycophants. And the Jan 6 traitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your word
I don’t defend anyone who broke the law on the 6th. Not one. Each should be tried for their crimes.
I’m just consistent in my call for prosecution.
And stick to actual facts, not perceived hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
Nah, what you do is kiss the footprints of everyone beating their chest for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Then why are the Proud Boys being charged with conspiracy? That kind of sounds like it was pre-planned.
Also, did you not see the gallows that were built to hang Mike Pence? Was that just a spontaneous thing where somebody just happened to have the materials in the back of their truck and decided to build it on the spot?
Also, what about all the stop the steal rallies, including Trump's, that were specifically planned to encourage the Trump fuckers to disrupt congress.
Most everything was planned to encourage the gullible fools there into storming the capital building using violence ("Take names and kick ass").
Just because the people there being violent didn't have much cooridnation between them, doesn't mean that it wasn't pre-planned, encouraged by Trump and his sycophants, to be there at that time to attack congress with aspirations to kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi.
Do you really think that if the members of congress and the VP hadn't been evacuated, that the mob of violent Trump fuckers would not have engaged in violence, up to and including killing somebody?
Like I said in an earlier comment, you have your head so far up Trump's ass, you can no longer see reality from the shit that he spews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Far right anti-government anarchist insurgents who were also there, maybe…probably.
Those fuckers have nothing to do with me. And little legitimate to do with Trump. Maybe they voted for Trump, I doubt they voted at all. They were fucks in 2015 before Trump and they still are today.
But they are still a tiny minority.
Much like Antmen and the new black panthers. They’re tiny little vocal fucks that give others a bad name. And just like Fox is wrong linking BLM for Antmen, you (plural) are wrong linking nazi scum with republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Ok, you almost have quoting figured out. One hint, next to the submit button is a preview button, clicking on that will allow you to view you comment as it will appear once submitted. It will also allow you to edit your comment in order to make changes and fix your markdown mistakes.
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.
"Stand down and stand by"
There where "very fine people on both sides." (considering one side was nothing but wanna be nazis.)
The republican party has been taken over by the extremists. Here is the most recent:
Rep. Madison Cawthorn calls Jan. 6 rioters 'political prisoners,' warns of 'bloodshed' at GOP event
And there is Boebert, Marj Green, Gaetz, Brooks, Gosar, Hawley, (I don't care if I spelled their names wrong, not worth my time to look up) who have all talked about using violence against Democrats and citizens in general. They have all espoused racist white nationalist ideals. The list go on and on, as do the extremists in the party.
And you know what, I will concede that the entire party may not be like the extremists, but they sure are willing to allow them a seat at the table. They never seem to denounce what is being done in the name of the GOP. And the extremists seem to have the loudest voices making the most noise of the GOP. If other members of the GOP do not align with their most vocal members, then why do they allow them to remain in the party.
I think there is a saying... something something rotten apple something something spoils the entire bushel. And that goes with cops too. The good cops are just as bad as the bad cops because they allow the bad cops to still be bad cops.
The GOP have allowed the extremists take over the party, and the majority of them have allowed it to happen, and seemed to have embraced it as well.
And to finish, let me point to this Sturgis Rally vendor selling hats with Nazi symbolism. Considering rally goers are generally Trump supporting republicans, it's very telling that people there were buying Nazi hats.
So please tell me how it is wrong linking Nazi scum with republicans when that is what you see from the most vocal republicans, and the other members remain quiet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your word
There are neo nazi Republicans. Yes.
That doesn’t make all Republicans neo nazis.
I don’t call the democrats black supremacists as a whole despite some Bing just that, or aligning themselves with some.
Mtg, whatever her name is, is only popular discussion on the left. She’s nearly never in the breitbart feed. Rarely in the fox feed. And only once or twice in the NYT each week. Whatever she may say or do, she gets little coverage by the centre or near right.
Same goes for many of these boogeymen.
The left has created boogeymen to focus on. Increasing their minority messages by coverage. The reality is most Republicans won’t hear half of it (generically) if not for left wing news.
Feel free to link out to these members acting racist. Or whatever else.
Because all I see is voting fraud nonsense.
That stems from people not realising how successful mass media was in selective coverage, not fraud.
The continued belief is hardened by these nuts, but the dems were so quick to blow off concerns with not even a moment of a glance that it looks to not just fraud believers, but any rational person, that they could have something to hide.
Now for me I just see them wanting to run away and not discuss the miscoverage of national and international issues.
But when approached from a rational standpoint it’s easy to see how those already in an echo chamber simply feed off each other.
That’s a problematic on the left too, though.
That you keep hearing only about nazis and such, and begin to feed off it…!
Sure, I agree! The GOP needs to do more to call out the fringe.
But the Dems aren’t doing such a great job on their squad fringe either.
That’s not an oh, but, btw, it’s an acknowledgment that both sides need to be proactive on stepping nutter nonsense from spreading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your
"I am not a Republican, but I will suck every GOP cock if it means being able to direct GOP attention away from big meanie poo-poo pants." - Lostinlodos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change y
A) don’t false fake quote me you shite.
B) show me a single Republican who wants the absolute total complete destruction of any and all beliefs in god.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change y
C) grow some fucking balls. Or, if your female, grow a clit.
If you want to call me out so so under a registered name. You hide away turd.
You’re a coward unwilling to stand up for your thoughts in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to chan
D)
Tell your mum thanks for last night.
I’ll be slurping your sister tomorrow.
See, I’m not hard to find. And I don’t hide behind Anonymous.
I am who I am.
Log in fucker. Let Us know who you are. Chicken shite.
Your a fucking troll. Fuck off and die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to
And thus the mask comes off. This is my surprised face. I'll grant that it took you a while longer than expected to reduce you to a gibbering Jan 6th mess, but the multiple rabid responses all within ten minutes of each other is icing on the cake.
Try not to burst a blood vessel on Donald Trump or Sidney Powell's behalf. Searchable as your username is, they've been proven to not care for their supporters and throw them under the bus when it most conveniences them.
Or do, it's really no skin off my nose. You've been consistently making wise decisions, I'm sure another one looks great on your self-sacrificial resume. Don't you have an army of maskless protesters to defend next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time
Still hiding?
I may have drunk posted, but your still a scared little shite.
I doubt even STD or Nat truly believe I’m a republican. Rather just enjoying the pot shots at being a Trump supporter.
At least they… know for me it’s not who trump was but who he wasn’t.
I don’t hide. Why do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you enjoy being a glutton for punishment is not a mandate for me to sink to your levels of idiocy. You want to wave your 2nd Amendment claim around and threaten me, that's on you. It's not my responsibility to make your life easier.
Maybe don't drunkpost next time if you don't want to be humiliated again. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not the one hiding and making up quotes to make for arguments.
If you have something to contribute feel free.
As it stands your still just a little kid hiding behind anonymous and spewing shite.
lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one trying to defend the Jan 6th insurrection, people abstaining from masks, the failure to build a wall across the Mexican border, the non-existent attempt to put Hilary Clinton in jail, various police brutalities... I could go on. But anyone trawling through your post history can see the truth for themselves.
The fact that alcohol loosed your lips into revealing your true nature as an argumentative expert in the school of "Your mom" insults is your doing, not mine. If anyone feels free to defend your reputation on your behalf they're welcome to do so. Unfortunately for you, it seems the demand for white knights to safeguard the honor of sister-licking advocates of President Pussygrab is not high. Perhaps you could ask for some of the Jan 6th marchers to advocate for you instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never defend those who broke the law. My view of certain people changes as evidence proves otherwise. And I have always called for lawbreakers to be punished. I also support the right to protest. I simply point out the hypocrisy of calling every person at the capital a rioter or insurrectionist yet failing to say bad things about the bad people in the police protests.
If someone wants to die so be it. Their ability to affect me is minimal. And I’m perfectly ohkay with that tiny fractional difference in protection to defend their choice.
That’s only because he ran out of time. Once democrats ran out of obstacles the building was ahead of the timeline. It would have been finished before his 8 years were up.
We’re not touching on that … person.
And where do I defend brutality? Given every time the discussion matures I discuss the need for less lethal options?
However your still an Anonymous Coward who has no arguments except to make fake quotes whilst hiding. I’m not the one who brought up “poo” now.
See, you can go through my posts. I own what I post.
Can yo do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scoring full marks for the Trump apologism as usual. You really are the dry cat feed equivalent of a predictable, footprint-kissing simp.
Oh, right, "every time the discussion matures". AKA, "after I've said something shocking like 'maybe the naked fleeing person shouldn't have shown his bare back to the cop, he could have hidden a pistol in his spinal cord', THEN maybe I'll admit the cops could have been more tactful because I got the naughty Techdirties annoyed again". Note that I'm not saying you said the above. It's hyperbole based on a hallmark observation of police brutality advocates. Your first instinct is to always go for the "cop was frightened for his life facing down the defenseless civilian and everything they do after that should be okay because the job is stressful enough" hot take.
I make summations of your insistence that you're not a Republican, yet will soil your veteran adult diapers every time it looks as if someone might have made fun of them. If someone else believes that interpretation of your post history to be inaccurate, and chooses to be offended on your behalf, they're very much free to respond.
I am just as free to choose not to engage your attempt to bait me into a confrontation with your Second Amendment firearm. Especially not with someone who threatens to rape my family while inebriated. If you expect me to sink to your level just so you can exercise that trigger finger as one of the few things that sustains your erection, be prepared to be disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ve always supported less lethal options. My post record shows that.
I’m just not going to fall over for people who run, flee, attempt to drive off,‘or otherwise ignore what they’re told and do the opposite.
Feel free to link to a naked suspect
Being shot in the back. That’s a new one for me.
Go ahead and show how I support brutality. I’m waiting.
Wait, what? That’s your response for hiding? I don’t want anyone else defending me. I’ll do it myself: thanks.
Seriously? Where. When. That I won’t ignore. Rape is a serious crime. And you joking around with such a term just drove you the top of the tower of self obsessed shite fucks.
Appears to me you’re the one obsessing on guns and sexual assault.
Your a sick person who needs help. Please, find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really want to play the Tero Pulkinnen ignorance game don't you gobshite? Here, I'll cite your own quote:
Again, don't expect me to take responsibility because you can't keep your hands off the drink, your fingers off the keyboard, your spittle in your mouth and your phallus in your pants.
I'm not the one challenging posters to fights on behalf of a President who openly joked about manhandling female genitalia.
You seem to be an expert on the subject, why don't you check yourself into an asylum and let the class know how it worked out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh…. You’re under the impression it wouldn’t have been consensual!
Big difference between accepting an offer and force.
And a major difference between a relatively standard barb and someone screaming “rape”. You idiot.
And the only thing I challenged you to was be anything other of the tiny snail hiding under the rock.
You can find my post history. Here: everywhere.
I don’t hid. Kind of hard to figure out who you are…. All sneaky anonymous spy person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bold of you to assume that a mother and daughter would fall over your self-importance. The "oyakodon" phenomenon doesn't exist outside of manga and visual novels not mentionable among polite company.
I'd say incel is not a good look for you, but seeing that you're a card-carrying student of the "Grab them by the pussy" school, this sort of juvenile boasting is unsurprising from you.
Tough shit. Why not go on your knees and beg daddy Trump to find me. See, this is what makes you trolls so predictable. Eventually you resort to slights on women and children to reassert your ability to gain an erection, because nobody believes you have anyone else's best interests aside from copyright overreach and cocksucking the thin blue line.
Keep screaming at the sky because your opponents won't willingly line up with their pants down and asses in the air so you can shove your 2nd Amendment up their buttholes. It's not my responsibility to help you get off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, this is how you call yourself out as a typical anonymous troller. Hit. Move. Don’t use facts. Don’t reply to what was said…
Nobody who knows me nor knows of me, nor anyone who as been even here would logically call out and say I resort To “slights on women and children”.
I’m about as liberally feminist as it can get.
And you link to some other anonymous shites as proof”I” said something?
I don’t hid behind anonymous.
A logical person would look at this and see I called you a quote-unquote family of whores. That you can’t understand metamorphic symbolism is your own problem.
Take a look over a torrent freak and come back and show any kind of proof of that.
Oh, TD here pulls stories from them quite often; btw.
Or GitHub. Or HBR. Where all of my work is IDGAF.
About the only place I agree with republicans in law and order. And yes, that includes defence and police and the right to my weapon.
Like I pointed out: You’re a whore. An attention whore.
You came out the gate with ballocks and bull. If you want to sling mud don’t cry when you get dirty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And your appeal to "but but but democrats" and attempt to ply the emotional "but but but both sides" arguments worked out so well for you, Jan 6th cheerleader.
"Some of my best friends are blacks and gays!" Snore.
Learn to realize that the usage of the word "you" might mean different things. Grow a few more brain cells to recognize context when you see it. I'm not saying you literally said those things, dumbass. I'm saying you're exhibiting traits that strongly resemble the kind of trash spewed by copyright supporters who wouldn't look out of place in an incel convention.
Yes, people will be able to see Lostinlodos calling someone else a family of whores, same way John Smith did to another man's family until he realized that people would put two and two together to call him out in future arguments, then proceeded to stop leaving an identifiable handle behind - but continued posting the same exact topics, in the same exact outrage. And you think having a name to calling someone a family of whores is a good look for you?
I suppose if you think simultaneously white knighting Trump-led Republicans while desperately trying to both wash yourself from their misdeeds and point the fingers at Democrats and non-binaries for their sins is a good look for you, well... if you can't have low standards you'd might as well not have any standards, right?
Not my job to do your own research for you. Trawling through the thousands of posts you idiots make is more effort than should be necessary to prove that you're all authoritarian-fellating pond scum.
We get it, you're in love with your 2nd Amendment. Maybe stop jacking it off, just a hint. Rifles tend to be a lot more violent when they ejaculate.
And given that postulate, your solution is to give even more attention? This is about as weak as your "Trump would have built that wall if them Dems hadn't frauded the election from him" argument. You're pretty shit at thinking things through aren't you?
You could have chosen to ignore it. You could have chosen to focus on literally any other statement made at your expense. Instead you decided to get yourself wasted on alcohol, made disparaging, escalated remarks boasting about your sexual prowess on a mother and daughter, then got angry because nobody is gargling your balls from your argumentative wit. Now you're reduced to clutching your precious firearm, wondering why nobody wants to play the game of "let Lostinlodos shove his live weapon up their ass".
You chose to play a game of Solitaire without a full pack of cards, mate. Accept that you fucked up and move on. Or don't. Frankly any time you trolltards respond, it's another step in cementing the idea that Republican cheerleaders are angry that they gambled poorly. I give it another week or two before you devolve into the kind of big-brain wordplay John Smith uttered in outrage when he realized Shiva Ayyadurai failed to sue Techdirt into oblivion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Poor, poor funny man. Looked at me syndrome!
.
Want my weapons? Take them from my cold dead hands. I be if discussion. Be it the fuck of breaking into my home and threatening my family or the squirrel for jerky. I have the right and intend to keep it.
The wall would have been finished in under 8 years. That he got voted out by the bare minimum… doesn’t change that.
Who’s John smith. Which John smith. That’s one of the more common names.
And if you’re trying to call me a Jon Smithe, idiot, then your choice of “examples” don’t match my sentence structure, spelling, language use… or anything else.
But my research! Yours. Show a single instance where I stand with the MAFIAA. That’s your job… not my.
Yep. Your fun to toy with. 😀
Nobody will here. I’m totally independent and libertarian.
Sure some have come to my aid, from both sides of the A/B decide at times.
I thank them when they do.
But my response to my public persona is the same as everything else in my life. IDGAF.
Period.
I aware more things to laugh at when you reply. You’re good for my health. Making me smile every evening!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one's coming to take your security blanket, chumley. Masturbate your barrels to get over your need to overcompensate in your own safe space.
At the progress he was making, with the pandemic in full swing? You're going to have to do better than shaking your head vigorously and using "Nuh-uh!" as your point of optimism, but I doubt you've got any more than that.
I'm not calling you "John Smith". I'm saying your approach to argumentation reminds me of another recurrent Techdirt troll, down to the drunkposting and threats/boasts against women. I'll acknowledge that you're a slightly smaller failure than he is, but on the other hand that's a very low bar to clear, so... not much of a compliment.
Again, I'm not saying you stand with the MAFIAA. I'm saying you demonstrate a similarity to them. You gobble up the sperm of Trump and his team the same way John Smith gobbles up the sperm of Shiva Ayyadurai and Paul Hansmeier.
But you'll piss your pants, get drunk off your ass and boast about your sexual conquests with anyone who disagrees with Trump. Sure, whatever helps you wear the Melania Trump mask, I guess.
Said the guy who got his mother's thong in a twist around his clitoris, drunk posted across three responses in a bid to claim sexual prowess another person's mother and sibling. Funny how Techdirt trolls claim to be so against the site, so fervent in their belief that this website has no significant online presence... but poke them just a little and they threaten and scream bloody murder. What a thin-skinned loon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nYoi5gRSMg
Huh.
Yes. The pandemic had minimal effect on construction as a whole. Less on the wall.
He was well on schedule once it was started.
Neither one of us have anything beyond thought on the wall.
There’s basically nowhere I agree with republicans beyond law. I happen to believe that law, order, defence… is a requirement for a stable existence.
A response that shows your lack of understanding in the basic “yo mama” toss.
It was an unnecessary gutter attack and I apologise to the community for going there I can be quite rude when my filter fails and such action is unacceptable.
You’re seriously confusing me with someone(s) else!
I’m not stupid, there’s no doubt the authors tend to be more than slightly left politically. But outside of law I tend to fully agree with said authors.
Are you just upset that I attack the right wingers as quickly as the left? Am I stepping on your ‘right’ to first toss of word?
Or is it that I think law and punishment should be equal for those I agree with and those I don’t? That I don’t bend over backwards to defend or to accuse.
Is it that I look at, and for, evidence? Regardless of the suspect?
Maybe it’s that I said prove it to both pee-pee-gate and laptop-gate? Or that I jumped on the key talking point of PPG and said bull and then said prove something because the key talking point is beyond doubtful?
Or is it that I didn’t jump to toss off on emails since I’m a tech and recognise a clear method for the material to exist as such?
I never said they were real or not. Only that it was more likely given history that Bidens were running secret deals than trump hanging with hookers.
Is it that I won’t condemn all law enforcement on the acts of the smallest of minorities?
Or is it that I point out that the violence of the anti-police protests were unacceptable?
Ultimately, all I see is someone who fights for “equality” who hates it when equality is actually applied.
One thing I have that you don’t? I’m who I am. Again, I’m not hard to find. Look me up and read what I say. I never hide. When I’m correct I’m correct. When I’m wrong I’m wrong.
I admit when I’m wrong. Learn from it. Move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hello frosty. 🥶 ☃️
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
The only “ projection” here is you making clear anyone who disagrees with you is a racist neo nazi christian alt right q.
Just the ones who anxiously live up to that characterization, bud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Liars, overreactions, and trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
Unless you’re being lawfully detained (i.e. are not free to go), you have the right to run if you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
When I said “lawfully detained”, I meant “detained as the term is defined under US law”, not “detained for a lawful reason”. Sorry. I should have been clearer.
My point was to mention that, if a cop is approaching you for a “consensual encounter”, you are legally entitled to run from the encounter, even if that cop tells you to stop running a while later. This is from a California case about a jogger who was approached by police and ran down a hiking trail who later sued for violation of his rights against unlawful arrest and unlawful retaliation (he was also a cop) and succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone Might Actually Pay
The interesting thing is that all the attorneys are on the hook here. From pg 109 of the order:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall jointly and severally pay the fees and costs incurred by the State Defendants and the City of Detroit to defend this action.So, until someone actually pays, they all have judgments against them. That has consequences, assuming always that the defendants properly record the judgment for fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Let me play you a mix tape"
In Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2:20-cv-01771, District Court, E.D. Wisconsin), attorneys for Governor Tony Evers plays the bench slap mixtape for the Court in Doc 111 — NOTICE by Tony Evers of Supplemental Authority.
Covered are court orders from:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better Late than Never
You know? When I read this article with its smearing, sniggering snarky depiction of Sydney Powerll and Lin Wood and then read the corrupt judge's pages of nonsense, which nevertheless, could have some important consequences for that hateful corruption, I started to wonder how Sydney Powell was reacting these threats to her vocation.
So I went on a search for recent video of her and I do mean recent. Like in the last week.
And what did I find? Sydney Powell without a care in the world. She (and Lin) know what is right and just.And if some corrupt and hateful AG wants to enlist her BBF judge to mount a hate campaign that has nothing to do with justice, fairness or American style decency?
Looks like Sydney is saying: bring it.
Your article is nonsense. You should be questioning like journalists do. Instead you are applauding like tainted corrupt fools do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better Late than Never
Restless wrote:
Please elucidate and justify this adjective
What do you know about Judge Nichols that we do not? Or are you using "corrupt" as a adjective which is meaningless in debate similar to "not in 100% lockstep with my personal, undocumented, ignorant prejudgement" ?
Restless wrote:
That's what links are for.
Restless wrote:
That's not what her side said in court in US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, MOTION to Dismiss by DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC, INC., SIDNEY POWELL, SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.. (Doc 22-2) (p. 33 (or 43 if you count the first page as 1)) :
But not only does this "it's just my opinion I actually have video of the company founder engaging in conspiracy" claim not successfully turn a factual claim into a privileged opinion, in fact the evidence behind such claims is missing, leaving Powell defenseless.
Since you throw in a misogynic slight against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel it appears you are making fact-free claims. Nessel did not file papers in King v. Whitmer. Nor do you have evidence that Nessel and Judge Parker spoke on the matter.
So worked up are you that you toss in the initialism BBF which has many meanings. Initially, I assumed you were having a racist Freudian slip and conflated BFF (best friends forever, which would make more sense if you used a useful meaning for "corrupt") with some other race-themed initialism, but possibly "Big Black Female" is established usage in racist or fetish circles. But... Judge Parker is not a big person: 2016 video
This use of "tainted" is commonly seen in a white supremacist propaganda and rarely elsewhere. Please elucidate and justify this adjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better Late than Never
Didn't you say "discovery will be fun"?
You had all the time in the world, fam. Where's the discovery? Where's the fun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better Late than Never
Don't keep us waiting bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sickening. This is a Bolshevik country now.
Courts are like some party apparatus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“They tested their assumptions at their own convenience…and failed.
made the Last Word by XcOM987