Since I didn’t offer an opinion, only observations, you failed the exercise by jumping to conclusions about me.
Might be the only one in here that actually gets it. Meanwhile we keep arguing amongst each other over meaningless semantics that each side is convinced is correct. Completely missing the obvious.
District court cases basically aren’t precedential in our legal system. Some states like Minnesota outright say as much. Only courts of appeals or state supreme courts are binding precedent. What a district court judge does or doesn’t do is not really consequential as far as creating precedent goes in the legal system.
The problem is that there is no basis in law for such a proposition. It would also piss off 90% of the country. While not every possible scenario has worked its way through the court system in this country, you still need some foundational legal principles to apply in order to arrive at that conclusion. There is simply nothing out there that could support that holding a particular office renders you untouchable. That is about as antithetical to our legal system as it gets. Not even the most hatchet judge of all hatchet judges could make this idea hold water. There is a huge difference from historical practice to the idea that serious crimes could be committed by a president and nothing done about it. In fact, the Constitution itself specifically says that a president impeached and removed can be indicted for that crime. The punishment is not limited to removal from office.
Was a Piper Saratoga...I believe that was what JFK jr flew...
I do not know how much experience this guy had as a pilot. I can tell you that a low time pilot is not experienced enough to fly a plane like the Saratoga. While I have not flown a Saratoga before, I have flown a lot of different piper aircraft. Lots of crap can go wrong if you're phoning it in during pre-flight or your pre-takeoff run up.
I've never understood the fuel valve system in Piper aircraft. You typically have 2 fuel tanks - one in each wing - and some planes have a long range tank for a third. You have to manually switch tanks every 20-30 minutes when flying so that you burn fuel evenly through the flight and don't end up lopsided. It is shockingly easy to have the fuel valve stuck in a "not quite on not quite off" position and not notice. I had to get in the habit of forcing it hard left or hard right and doing a visual every single time. If this valve gets stuck, it has happened a few times where you got enough gas to roll down the runway and lift off, and then engine dies. You have about half a second to react to that before you're fucked.
With competent airmanship and no obstacles to clear, a reasonable pilot should have been able to land on the water and survive. It wouldn't be pretty. But you should be able to walk away. The problem is that most pilots don't regularly practice these drills. When real life happens, they freeze and fail to respond appropriately.
Flying is dangerous. Frankly, it is a miracle I still walk this planet with a heart beat. I have had quite a few close calls. Though I've never had to land anywhere besides an airport. One time my gear failed. Another time I had an engine header blow. I attribute this to pure roll of the dice. If it happened anywhere else, I might not have made it. RIP to this guy and family. Sad story.
WTF?? Did this guy just become the new "Just for Men" hair dye spokesman??
Hold your horses. I think I need to do some kind of AMA on how the courts work. SCOTUS vacating injunctive relief on determination that the lower court failed to provide sufficient justification does not end the case. When/if the full case gets to SCOTUS they might still rule in favor of the law. Whether that decision was correct or not, I do not know because I've not read the lower court's order. But people act like SCOTUS fucked it all up cuz they denied or vacated injunctive relief pending resolution on the merits. They fail to realize there is an entire process yet to play out. Man we need mandatory civics in this country again.
That would get immediately appealed by the state and reversed by an appellate court. Not gonna happen.
The only reason I wouldn’t view it as a Ross Perot situation for the dems is because Trump won a lot of dems. If he didn’t, he couldn’t have won at all. Those same dems might jump back to their side of the aisle if RFK is running on a third party ticket. It could really cause havoc in the electoral map for all.
Although I am sure I have a lot more differences with RFK than I do Trump, I don’t particularly care who comes in to deliver the coup de grace to the DS. Only that someone does so with speed, fury and vengeance. At this moment, I am fairly certain that an RFK jr v. Trump 2024 election won’t really bother me in the least as to who wins. The moment that lineup was finalized would be the moment I just lay back and stop fretting. And it might also be the moment that all hell breaks loose with the insane mob riots. Because that would be all they had left to fire.
Me either lol
That too. I hadn't gone that far down the logic tree. But this is true. When more than just bernie fanatics get their panties twisted, it will be a problem for them. Plus, its a lot easier to nudge someone over the line in a 9 way race. This will be 2way...maybe 3way. That'll be nearly impossible to stop RFK from winning the nomination.
I am not the brightest around here, and such a thought I cannot recall ever being discussed. Did I miss out and this was already known?
It has been since the inception of the republic.
Here is the relevant portion:
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
I italicized the criteria. This is basically a restatement of SCOTUS case law on the first amendment. It has been held permissible to restrict obscenity/sexually oriented speech, fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, violent speech etc... I contend this statute was written with precisely that case law in mind. This law does NOT protect the type of behavior that these companies claim it does.
Section 230 is completely misconstrued. It is supposed to be to shield platforms from liability for what its users say and actions taken to moderate content. But the types of content are the ordinary 1a obscenity and the “prurient interest.” The same types of speech that government can constitutionally restrict. Using basic canons of statutory construction, all of the list must be construed consistently with one another - be of like kind. Going full politburo is not protected under this section no matter what is said to the contrary. This needs serious judicial attention at the highest level.
Wish they actually posted the bill. None of what is shown there says what the tweet says. Though I don’t doubt the truth of it.
If half of El Salvador didn’t already live in the USA, this might lure some tech manufacturing there. I am not sure they have the population for that but maybe they’ll get some returning from the US. El Salvador has enjoyed TPS since the 90s. And every time it is supposed to end, it gets extended last minute.
Yes but not as you might think. The only court that could actually order the inspection is the district court. I have not viewed the latest docket in the case to see whether there has been a hearing or any filings since the case was put on remand by the SC.
If Lake just demanded access, the county can simply say no. It will take the district court to compel this. Until that is litigated this is what we get. I don’t believe the judge will grant it. And she will be going back to the AZ SC over the issue.
I pointed this out when the order was issued - it tells the district court to either find another reason this claim fails besides laches, or proceed to determine the signature issue. The judge is going to point to the exact same set of statutes that was the basis for denying access to ballot envelopes in the first trial. There is no statutory provision for inspection of the signatures and the judge is going to say just that. Only ballots. This is a special proceeding. The judge doesn’t have much leeway with what is here.
It’s a solid argument that such a scheme renders the signature statute meaningless. But I am doubtful that any district court judge is going to rule that way even if they wanted to. It basically puts the judge in uncharted territory because he has to make up the rules, boundaries, and basic framework for this dispute because the legislature didn’t. Such a task will be viewed as better for the state Supreme Court.
This is an inherent feature of the real property recording system. Only a small minority of jurisdictions use the Torrens system for real estate. In the recording system, anyone can file anything. Filing a false instrument is a felony. But nobody is going to stop you from filing anything. The county recorder doesn’t really have a duty to investigate the authenticity of what gets filed. Obviously there is a duty to not allow knowingly fraudulent instruments to be filed. But that line isn’t black and white either.
The registration system used in 99% of the country is merely for notice. Just because there is some recorded deed showing you own a given piece of property is no guarantee you actually do. One has to “effectively” record, and that means that you have to acquire your interest via all sorts of rules involving prior chain of title. Some states have statutes that real property must have a conveyance deed filed in order to lawfully have title. But that is a more recent phenomena…historically it has not been so. It is possible to have title but not have recorded the conveyance.
This is how massive money laundering in the luxury real estate world happens. Numerous transfers over time to alter ego shell companies without recording the deed at ever increasing purchase prices. Prior entity has “clean” real estate profits after each transaction. It is also why real estate in certain areas appreciates at absurd rates…they are driving that price sky high in endemic level laundering. It would shock the shit out of you all how much this is done here.
Torrens, on the other hand, is like a registration system. One applies to convey a property to someone else. Instead of a deed, you get “title.” Government basically manages that. If they give you “title” that property is yours in 999/1000 instances.
Every deed registry in the country is vulnerable to fraudulent filings. So what Fontes said isn’t really meaningful. Like for example: Say Hobbs did file a deed of trust on her house from a company that didn’t exist. It isn’t the recorder’s duty to determine this before filing it. Nor after filing it. If they had to do this, it would take months to file; this would be highly problematic for purposes of “constructive knowledge” of various title conditions and subsequent conveyances. Such a delay in the current framework would lead to making it really easy to (1) sell the property to multiple separate buyers at the same time; (2) get simultaneous multiple mortgages without the banks finding out when title searching; and (3) create virtually uninsurable broken chains of title on various exploited real estate.
Edit: If you want to find malfeasance, go thru the grantor/grantee index and look for conveyances where the grantor is not the same as the prior conveyance grantee. This indicates a break in the chain of continuous title and is a huge enormous red flag for laundering. It is far more likely than not said property has some laundering connection.
Or put another way, when searching the grantor/grantee index, look for properties where the seller conveying the property to the latest buyer is not the same name as the last buyer on the prior conveyance. This name, if chain is unbroken, should be the exact same. The newest sale seller name should be the prior sale’s buyer name. If they don’t match, either (1) the latest conveyance is bogus, and that seller has no rights to sell; or (2) there are prior unrecorded conveyances indicating probable fraud/laundering.
Arrest this fag for no tax stamp SBR
Side question: what is this dude talking about with IPs run by the DoD? I am aware of the transfer at the end of Trump’s term, but I couldn’t find anything in the thread to enlighten me as to what he’s talking about.
I’m sorry that you asked a question and didn’t like the answer. Explaining how the legal system operates is not “flatulations” and dooming even if it goes completely over your head or hurts your fragile feelers. Frankly at this point, if you have any belief that any court in this country is going to do something about election fraud, I question whether you have been paying attention at all…fraud suits are batting .000 right now. It certainly isn’t dooming to read the damn court order and point out what I did. You obviously didn’t. Or for inexplicable reasons you discard substance and choose to subscribe to platitudes and hopium. And choosing symbolism over substance is precisely cope, rainbows, and unicorns.
No court is going to mess with this. Hobbs will be subject to a recall election long before any appeals are heard and resolved. That is the only way to undo this. Write it down and call me a doomer. And when that happens, you can come back here and I’ll gladly and smugly tell you I told you so.
More cope, rainbows, and unicorns from you. Facts apparently don’t matter. Just personalities and how much money they put into something. Never mind that everything I said is correct. You attempt to rebut my observation with frivolous and weightless personality/money arguments. And “secret information” not filed in any court case…that’s a first one for me. Never had an adult go full make believe mode on me before.
The Q movement includes anons and not just Q. And God only knows how many anons there are. This group is maligned because people don’t understand that it is basically a laboratory experiment in research and seeking truth. When you start publicly testing hypotheses, you get to see some real far out shit. You also get to be lumped in with Ron Watkins. Smearing Trump with some of the “not ready for prime time” hypotheses is big time low hanging fruit for the media.
In short, WE are the reason he doesn’t want to be associated with it. WE are far too unpredictable in what we might say or do. And we will never be afforded enough air time to defend what we say or do to the rest of the outsiders. Finally, the big one: WE will never get credit for all the stuff we’ve been right all along about.
You chose not to listen to anything I said.
The AZ court system is not the last redress available, and elctions in AZ at the governor's level have been challenged and overturned in the past. The path is difficult but not unassailable or impossible.
I never commented on what the last redress available is. I never said they’ve not overturned an election before
The reason 100000 sigs are in question is becuase they have already been vetted and found wanting.
Not true. Anything she posted was from 2020. Take that to the bank. That was all from a hearing in the legislature about 2020. Only the cucked county has possession of the 2022 sigs and they will not turn them over. Nobody but the county has seen these since the election.
If you think Lake and Lindell are spreading falsehood by emphasizing the importance of this ruling paticualrly where signature verification is involved, I challenge you here and now to say so bluntly.
If you didn’t have the reading comprehension of a goldfish, you’d see where I pointed out that they don’t just get to jump in and do this. The AZ Supreme Court order remanded it back to the district court to either find another reason to kick this case besides laches (of which there are many specious grounds) or to hear the case about the signatures. Who do you believe on this - the AZ Supreme Court who wrote and signed the order? Or Mike Lindell and Kari Lake? You think a district court judge who booted it the first time and invented his own evidentiary standard for the rest of the case and imposed an absent from the statute mens rea for their actions is going to be like “oh gee, guess I should get on with the signatures…” instead of booting it??
Since they are the one's who have invested the millions in prosecuting this case and they contiue to be hopeful about the ultimate outcome, I choose to believe that they have more insight than either of us, and have sound reason to believe as they do. They have visibility to information that neither you nor I have, and I choose to share their optimism rather than your doom.
Like on election night when Kari Lake wasn’t worried and she had the votes? And how she wasn’t worried in the 400 days afterwards that they counted Hobbs into victory? When hasn’t she been optimistic? When has Lindell not been optimistic? And what has Lindell won besides being a staunch supporter?
List of major hurdles:
- not getting kicked again for failing to state a claim on other specious grounds
- election contest rules do not provide for examining ballot envelopes - the judge cannot simply decide it does; that would immediately get thrown out on appeal.
- without envelopes there can be no “conclusive and mathematically sound” basis to call the outcome into question, as required by the AZ Supreme Court’s order. It is pure speculation.
- reviewing the actual signatures would take substantially more time than permitted in an election contest
You can completely ignore everything I said and I don’t care. If you want to live in magic world of cope, rainbows and unicorns, have at it; I hear there is a pot of gold if you can get to the end of the rainbow. However, I choose to live in reality. If you want to have a real debate about what I said, calling me a doomer and saying that you believe Lake and Lindell over me is about the most lacking in substance “debate” I have had on this board. Neither of those 2 have addressed what I have said, and I stand by it.
The idea that dems support minorities is antithetical to history. The Klan was basically a dem campaign apparatus. Once Johnson passed the great society program, then he began purchasing minority support with taxpayer funds. Suddenly “rights of minorities” became increased government handouts. The gravy train is what the dems support. Because otherwise open racism was not working for them. Then the media spun it as Reps are for the rich and against minorities…amazing how that works.