Leftist redneck from Mississippi and now NC. Brewing beer and making wine in a barn for a non profit brewery and winery is a lot better than wearing a suit all day in a Federal Courthouse
409 followers 193 following 6,564 posts
view profile on Bluesky 
“The U.S. Space Command HQ will move to the beautiful locale of a place called Huntsville, Alabama, forever to be known from this point forward as Rocket City,” Trump said. Ok Donny, ok. We’ll tell the enormous number of small businesses that call themselves Rocket City ________ that it’s official.
So?
That's not from the lawsuit, friend.
That's not from the filing. Would you like to try again? Do you know what a Court filing is?
The loyalty here is solely to understanding the law and freedom of speech. You're the one who wants Trump to be able to sue people for calling him dumb.
That's not accurate. Which claim in the lawsuit was over being called a "whack job"? Please give the specific number from the filing.
That's not a claim for defamation in the lawsuit. It would help if you actually read the filings.
Not a claim for defamation In the kawsuit. It would help if you read the lawsuit.
Friend, you should read the filings. Whack job isn't one of the claims sought as defamation.
Friend, you should read the filings. "Whack job" isn't one of the claims sought as defamation.
Reach isn't an element of defamation.
No part of that case was about calling someone dumb, either. Would you like to try again?
He has not. Whether or not you consider someone "dumb" is purely dependent on your own personal views and definition of what you consider to be "dumb." As such, it can't be proven false and isn't actionable in a US Court.
What's the case number and which specific cause of action was over being called "dumb?"
Nothing in the lawsuit was over being called dumb. Would you like to try again?
Anything here?
He didn't. This isn't slander under US law.
Not a relevant factor.
Can you cite the case where Trump succeeded in suing someone for calling him dumb? Please be specific in your citation.
You don't, though. You already said you didn't know the elements of the tort, nor did you understand that slander and defamation aren't two separate things.
Why do you want to give Trump the power to sue people who say he is an idiot?
No, friend. She would just end up owing money. It's the same reason why Trump can't sue me for saying he is a moron and should be in prison.
The system is what protects you from being sued for your comments about Trump.
Again, you're confusing your own morality for the law. If you weren't so attached to your own bigotry, you might actually learn something about the law.
You're confusing your morality for the law. If you weren't so attached to your own bigotry, you might learn something from legal professionals in the field of law.
No, friend. That would be a SLAPP suit and would result in her owing substantial amounts of money if she sued over these comments.
Rudy defaulted. It isn't relevant to this case as these aren't precedential matters. What is the falsifiable statement of fact?
You have a right to pay the fee and file a lawsuit, yes. But if the lawsuit is a SLAPP suit, ie you're suing over constitutionaly protected speech, then you could end up owing the person you sued a large sum of money.
You have a First Amendment right to call for anyone to be fired.
No. Those aren't the elements of defamation. The very first element is that it must be a falsifiable statement of fact. That means it can be empirically shown to be false. Opinions and hyperbole are specifically excluded from this.
Reach isn't an element of defamation.
Slander is defamation. Saying it is both defamation and slander is nonsensical.
AI is a bad thing to rely on for legal questions, friend. Do you know what the elements of defamation are in the US?
It is not either in the US. Whether or not you believe someone is "dumb" is purely a matter of opinion. Crass insults are neither assault nor defamatory in any jurisdiction in the US.
Do you know what the elements of defamation are in the US?
Wow. You're quite the bigot, huh?
Is there someone we can call to help you through this episode?
What do you believe is the false statement of fact?
Wtf is a "Federal headquarters?"
Lying is absolutely protected speech. Do you believe the government can prosecute you for lying about the existence of Santa to children?
Pointing out what an opinion is certainly seems to emotionally affect people.
Oh. This seems to have upset him.
The First Amendment disagrees with you.
Charges for what crime?
It's the same evidence you rely on to claim he is innocent, friend. Whether or not you believe he is a murderer or innocent is purely a matter of opinion. Just like the jury's decision is a matter of the jury's opinion.
Blue maga; Mueller Time nonsense.
Rudy got drunk again.
They are trying to spin it like he is some kind of hero but you know exactly what this was.
That's non-responsive to the question asked.
Nothing screams "too online" like these lists.
Dictionary measuring contest.
How much time do you have?
He was maybe wearing diapers in the 90s. Maybe.
Just flopping out dict..ionaries on the table, huh?
I guess you don't know.
People are terrible in general. This "those good salt of the earth people are just misunderstood" is just fetishization.
There is no law that designates pineapple as a pizza topping, so it isn't lawful.
It's a real thing. They believe a court can't hear cases based on the decorations in the courtroom.
I really like this response because it clearly demonstrates what they don't understand about US law. "If there isn't a law allowing it then it is prohibited" is literally the opposite of how it works.
I guess she needed a safe space.
I thought you said you weren't making assumptions?
Your belief that I was talking about a court order proves you a liar.
The laws that establish them are a good starting point, sweetie.
They are very fragile.
No one claimed it was a court order. Are you hearing voices?
I mean I have had drinks with several in both the Fifth and Fourth Circuits. We put it in the court room. It's use was to stand there.
Feel free.
I am the source. I'm not sure what about this confused you.
"their(sic) should be in compliance" according to whom? Which part of the statute requires it?
Quite a few, actually. Across districts and circuits. You're still confused by the concept of placing an order for something you wish to purchase.
There is literally no legal meaning. It doesn't have any effect on the type of court it is.
You don't need a "legal reason" as there is no requirement to use anything at all.
They told me. What other reason have you concocted in your imagination?
Can you cite a single example of it having any impact?
I do. Let me know what other basic concepts are confusing you, sweetie.
Lol. Are you feeling okay? Is there someone we can call to help you through this? What giant conspiracy are the voices in your head whispering to you?
Are you still confused by the concept of placing orders for something?
Literally because he thought it was more distinguished
I really liked GSA having a specific form for ordering additional forms.
I am the eyewitness. My testimony is evidence. You seem very easily confused.
Correct. Whether or not the flag has gold fringe has no legal impact on any questions before the court.
GSA schedule. Like I alluded to earlier.
Lmao. You're confused by the concept of placing an order for something to be purchased?!
Yes. The Judge came.to.me.and asked me to order it. I'm not sure which part of this confuses you.
What was because of me?
It's not clear to me that you understand what those words mean. What is the legal implication? Please cite the statute or case law you're referencing.
If my judge comes to me and says "I like the way this one looks. Order this one" what are the legal implications?
They literally said it was because they preferred how it looked. I'm not sure which part of this is confusing you, sweetie.
Gross income is the term. It is a singular. It is all forms of income except as distinguished elsewhere in the title including wages and fringe benefits. Which is why you cant cite a single case saying those things are excluded for individual income taxes.
Gross income is what is used by the IRS.
It's not a presumption at all. I had federal judges literally order it for that specific reason.
26 USC 61
For example, you claim no statute defines income, but that isn't true. The laws governing individual income taxes do.
If there is no law prohibiting the act then the logic is that it is legally allowable. It's purely a matter of aesthetic.
Which specific case do you believe addresses my question? None of these appear to say wages are excluded from personal income taxes.
The answer is because they can. There is no reason why they can't. It does, however, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of American jurisprudence by you that you believe they aren't allowed to do so.
Here is a simple question for you, sweetie. What specific case says that wages are excluded from the laws that govern personal income taxes?
Maybe they think it is pretty. It is legally irrelevant.
Because they are legally free to use whatever flag they want off of GSA schedule.
