I go off on some one who thinks porn is good, I vehemently disagree:
I ask for someone to post sources, their response is, I have so many sources, but I'm not going to dig them up and post them, just for you to ignore them
I post my source (just one for simplicity, it also has it's own set of sources)
So tell me, am I wrong for wanting those sources, regardless of me looking at it or not, wouldn't it be prudent to post them and others might use them?
I thought Brave was better than safari/chrome, but WOW is Yandex good. Only issue is asks to convert things to RU, or mostly shows RU websites, but it’s fast and doesn’t direct you to what the DS wants you to find.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. The courts deem such evidence tainted fruit of the poisonous tree. The origin of this doctrine is found in the landmark Supreme Court case, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
If this proves to be the case, even if they "found" "incriminating" evidence, they truly have nothing.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. The courts deem such evidence tainted fruit of the poisonous tree. The origin of this doctrine is found in the landmark Supreme Court case, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
If this proves to be the case, even if they "found" "incriminating" evidence, they truly have nothing.
Title
Riding a bus to work (if people are interested as to why I can explain later), an ad came up for kids and concussions. Saying that they don’t need an injury for a concussion to happen. As someone who as a kid played sports, never heard of this in my life. Is this a way to cover for vaccinating kids who got the Covid shot?
From Jill Biden saying breakfast tacos, to Joe Biden saying almost anything, pretty much every democrat ever (Killary Clinton in the south) are the most racist and offensive people in the US. Change my mind.
