And you can’t even answer why those two assertions aren’t inconsistent! I mean no one can. Still so pathetic.
Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
300 followers 216 following 5,263 posts
view profile on Bluesky
And you can’t even answer why those two assertions aren’t inconsistent! I mean no one can. Still so pathetic.
FFS, you can’t even keep your assertions consistent. First you claimed that my “statement” was that you admitted that Rittenhouse killed them for that reason. Now you’re claiming that I was the one saying he killed for that reason. Your bullshit is so bad that even you can’t keep it straight.
He also seems like the kind of person that believes that saying that Rittenhouse is a racist is also a defamatory statement.
Nope. I was asking you if that was your claim. Which is why a a question make followed it. I wouldn’t need to ask you if you were asserting that Rittenhouse knew their histories if you had admitted that he shot them for that reason. He would have to know that to shoot them for that reason.
Blah, blah, blah. It takes quite the ego to assert that my proving you’re an idiot is “barfing on humanity.”
What? “Barfing on humanity?” Jesus you’re dumb. Please continue demonstrating how dumb you are.
I made no claim. I was asking what your claim was? God, yuu’re dumb.
Sure Chuckles.
No, because the words around that and the question mark show I was asking a question. It’s quite telling that you have to misquote me to make your assertion “Are you claiming that...” and the question make show that was a question not a statement.
Agian says the moron who has made numerous idiotic statements in the last day. What a tool.
That was part of the question Lenny. That could only be true and a statement if I knew the answer to the first part. Which is what I was asking you about. FFS, you keep showing your ineptness.
This feels like I am teaching my kids third grade lessons again. They caught on far quicker.
Have you heard of a compound question? there were two parts to it which were 1) was your claim that he knew those histories and 2) are you claiming he shot them for that reason. The second couldn’t be true and this a statement unless 1) was the claim you were making.
Nope. It was only a question. There was no claim in that sentence. Which a third grader would know.
It was a question you dolt. Keep making excuses but you were too dumb to know that. Hell, maybe you’re too dumb to be a bot.
Blah, blah, blah. You’re the bot who is incapable of telling the difference between a question and a statement.
That is a question, not a statement you dolt. Notice the question mark rather than a period or an exclamation mark? I am asking you if that was your claim, not stating that is what your claim was. That’s third grade English, FFS. How does the question mark not tip you off? You have to be a bot.
You’ve shown that your critical thinking skills are sub-par.
Says the moron who is unable to tell the difference between statement of fact and one of opinion.
No, I am arguing what the law is and what is relevant in the case or not. the only one deranged statements is you. Like claiming a “not guilty” verdict legally equals innocence. No one with a brain would make such statement.
What statement did I make? Can’t you read? I asked a question and then noted consequences depending your answer. And again if he didn’t know, then their past personal histories is irrelevant.
Are you claiming that Rittenhouse shot them for those reasons? Also, do you think a criminal can’t become the victim of someone else? As for “stupid,” you’re the moron who claimed that a “not guilty” verdict means innocence or that Rittenhouse has an excellent case to sue.
Kathryn, we know that the guy testified that … Oh wait he couldn’t testify as to his belief as to why he used force against Rittenhouse. Because he was dead.
Why won’t he answer his question re: the victims’ personal history? You are very eager to bring them up but you refuse to answer questions about why they are relevant.
Are you claiming then that he knew thos people’s personal history before he killed them and shot them for that reason? If so. that defeats your case for self-defense. If not, their personal histories are irrelevant to any discussion if he was guilty or not.
people. Those are “disclosed facts.” Everything presented by the prosecution is a “disclosed fact.” FFS, Pinky, peope can express an opinion that abortion providers are murderers even if they operate in states where abortion is legal. Because it is their opinion. This is some basic level shit
statements. And you don’t know what “disclosed facts” means legally. There are disclosed facts that can lead to someone expressing an opinion that he committed murder, even if it’s a moral opinion and not a legal one. For instance, he admitted to bringing the weapon and lkilling …
It’s not an “intentional lie” to say express an opinion that he is a murderer. And everyone has a 1A right to express that. The law is very clear on that. It would be an “intentional lie” to claim that he was convicted by a jury for murder. But you can’t tell the difference between those …
Says the guy that doesn’t realize that saying someone based upon disclosed facts is a “murderer” is an opinion. Or that Rittenhouse has an excellent defamation claim when he absolutely does not. Which is why he never sued anyone for it.
I didn’t call him a murderer. I pointed out the idiocy of claiimijg that a “not guilty” verdict equals “innocent.”
a criminal verdict means that someone is innocent or that the verdict is binding on anyone other than the government Thanks for admitting that you are absolutely wrong that a “not guilty” argument means that the defendant is innocent,
That doesn’t correct my points that the verdict does not legally mean what you claim it means. In fact, you essentially admit it beciae now you are turning to the evidence to try and prove that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Rather than turning to any legal principles or holdings that …
If a juror after hewing all the evidence reaches the conclusion that they don’t know if the defendant did the crime or not. they have to vote “not guilty.” In many occasions after a trial, jurors have been interviewed and have said that’s why they voted “not guilty.”
So yeah, it’s not rocket science but it is the law.
It’s also why Rittenhouse never sued Whoopi Goldberg or anyoone else for defamation for calling him a murderer. And no, he cannot sue her in the future because the statute of limitations has run out.
Which is why OJ could be found civilly liable and thus responsible for the wrongful death of victims even though a criminal jury found him not guilty. If your assertions were even close to correct, that civil verdict would not be possible.
express their opinion that the jury reached the wrong verdict. And that verdict is not binding on anyone but the gov’t.
Nope. What it means legally is that the jury found that the prosecution did not carry their burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A guilty man can be found “not guilty”and history shows it has happened). Plus, one can exercise thieir 1A right to …
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
Maddow didn’t claim it was a “mistake.”
No, they didn’t. They didn’t get “around” the lawsuit. It was dismissed because the judge found that the statements are issued were statements of opinion and/or rhetorical hyperbole that no reasonable viewers would interpret as a statement of fact. There is no “entertainment” defense.
Next, the FCC has no authority over cable channels nor any other medium other than “broadcasting” over radio waves. That authority has shown in the thread below was only allowed due to “unique” issues with that medium. bsky.app/profile/bwke...
No they don’t do that. That’s a social media myth. Calling yourself “entertainment” does not get you out of lawsuits. www.popehat.com/p/fox-news-v...
How is that different from what was written?
Correction, it's one of plethora of reasons that he is a moron.
declaration would be made. And the DoJ has no authority or role with regard to Section 230 and any action by the DoJ would have no legal impact on anyone else. As the Court noted the first time he sued the gov't. Which is why he is a moron.
Thus, even if the DOJ were to "side with Fyk," his lawsuit would still be useless. A judicial declaration that Section 230 unconstitutional by a district court is not binding on any parties other than the ones present in the case. And Facebook would not be in the case by the time such ...
FFS, Fyk has already been told that suing the federal gov't on this claim is uselss because there is no relief the gov't can give him on this.
And again it doesn’t even get to that point because the case gets dismissed on a motion to dismiss based on res judicata and lack of standing.
And why would the DOJ “side with Fyk?”
FFS, don’t you remember when I asked you what Constitutional provision it allegedly violates and you had no clue?
Plus you can’t an injunction against the courts interpreting a statute. It’s the courts interpreting and applying Section 230 and we already have cases rejecting arguments 230 is unconstitutional. It’s an idiotic argument like every other argument Fyk has made. And I have explained why b/4.
They won’t and can’t side with him. And no the court would rule against that per Facebook’s argument.
they will move to dismiss.
And if he tries this suit, it’s very likely that Facebook will seek sanctions against his attorney for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
That’s should have been obvious by my use of past tense verbs like “didn’t”, “did” and “lost.”
Pinky, I was talking about the writ he filed in the spring and how he framed it completely wrong as I explained it to to you then. I was pointing to 2 examples where Fyk showed he didn’t care about the law and it had no relevance.
No, he would first file a case in the district court. And why does that change a single thing I said?
How many times dows Fyk have to be proven wrong until you finally think “I shouldn’t take a single thing he says seriously? Because he has been wrong about everything and not right once.
Fyk didn’t care about meeting the requirements of how he had to frame his writ of certiorari or what FRCP 5.1 really meant. The courts did which is why he lost.
These are not difficult things to understand.
The courts care about res judicata, Pinky. What Fyk cares about is irrelevant. As I’ve told you, his case will be dismissed.
It’s amazing how people can completely misunderstand basic English. It’s not like there is any legal-ese in that portion. Plus it has to be interpreted in light of what the definition is above.
I’m going to mute you because your idiocy and ignorance is actually painful to deal with.
Deal with what?
The judicial system doesn’t use maritime law against its citizens unless it involves their interactions with the employment, transport, etc. ON THE SEA. Any claim otherwise is completely baseless and idiotic.
Do you not speak English? Because anyone who does should realize that language does not mean what you claim. FFS.
Wrong. The very language you underlined is all talking about the role courts play in Maritime Law. It is not saying that Maritime Law is the same law that applies to events on land.
Asked and answered. Any such case is barred by rea judicata. I’ve repeatedly told you this.
And the government has every right to pass 230 or any other law that does tort reform to give immunity. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.
The courts were the arbiter and ruled a) he failed to state a claim due to 230 against Facebook and b) he had not standing to sue the government that 230 was unconstitutional. He was given his chance to appeal and he did so and lost. He was given due process and is just butt hurt he lost.
Do not continue or I will block you.
He’s so dumb he doesn’t realize the the Trump 230 EO is legally irrelevant even if the courts did look at it.
And that is not what was said in those cases. FFS, in the case against the gov’t, it was ruled that he had no standing to sue the gov’t for 230. It’s over for him, as I have repeatedly explained. He and anyone else who think he can change are legally moronic.
There are no more details he can give. He is blocked from suing Facebook and the gov’t again on these claims or any others he could have brought with regard to these facts
I’ve answered the same question title and time again. Quoting Fyk does not answered my question. Only you can.
Don’t you dare or I will block you.
Seriously, and answer this question, what in your question today is different from what you've been asking about the plans Fyk has been expressing since he lost in June?
Further, his suits in "California courts." That makes it sound like state courts. They were federal courts including the Ninth Circuit which covers several states AND SCOTUS refused his appeal. How many times do I have to tell you the same shit?
And I've also told you that Trump's 2020 order did not claim to make Section 230 unconstitutional. There is nothing in it that would be useful in such a suit even if he could sue. Which you would know if you actually read it.
Asked and answered. He cannot sue Facebook and the gov't again for his removal, etc. from Facebook. I've literally told this to you more than 4 times.
Apparently, when you prove him wrong on every assertion and tell him he is applying the law wrong, you're making a "false judgement" and are only doing so to please the IRS and maintain standing as an attorney. What do you expect from someone who defended the term "sovereign citizen?"
Many, many times, the people only read the headline and make assumptions based on headline and never read the article/page. They don't get headlines aren't written by the actual article author and that they're worded to get clicks or edited for space.
I'd also add they shouldn't just post the link. Post a screenshot of the portion of the page that supports their argument. In the vast majority of cases where someone posts a link, the article, essay, etc. upon which they rely doesn't actually support their argument and often contradicts it.
Story of Tom Clancy’s O
Take a look at his attempt to take the definition of “willfulness” as a “voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty” as proving that paying taxes was voluntary. As if the word “voluntary” was characterizing “known legal duty” as opposed to violation.
His arguments not only take disparate meanings from unconnected sources, he also misinterprets them as well. Hell, he said that 15 USC 4724 defines US citizens as “businesses” for purposes of the tax code. It clearly does not.
“Contrary to his belief, it does not say that income is limited to such benefits.” Further, the intepretation was a statutory one of the statutes at that time. The code has changed drastically.
bsky.app/profile/beli...
He’s citing a SCOTUS case in the ‘20ms that sas that income includes corporate benefits. Contrary to his belief, he thinks it limited “income” to corporate benefits.
But apparently that what he thinks lawyers do or could do. Even when the individual statutes, etc say the use/definition is limited to that section.
to allow “free speech.” Doing so is the violation of 1A.
And finally 1A does guarantee free speech in the way you claim, asserting that an outlet being a propaganda machine “stifles free speech.” 1A only protects from government infringement of free speech. Private entities cannot violate 1A. As the cases above show, they can’t be required to …
Therefore due ro the above, we know that the Doctrine application of “brodcast stations” (of which cable channels are not) was an exception to 1A and that it could never be applied constitutionally to any other medium.
And I do think that we can say what would have happened given everything I pointed to. You think that that it’s possible that they could have which indicates also the possibility that they couldn’t have.
Whch means that it could be correct or it could be incorrect. “Incorrect” indicates an affirmative denial of the statement they couldn’t have.
No it isn’t at all. It goes it the direct authority under 1A for the FCC to license and regulate broadcast stations. And I have demonstrated that the drafters of 1A intended the right to “free press” to prohibit such licensing and regulation.
newspaper didn’t want to publish. The ruling was not premised on any unique factors applicable to newspapers. Last summer, SCOTUS held that social media sites also held such 1A rights and couldn’t be compelled by the gov’t to display viewpoints they didn’t want.