4
lawfag 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wait til you find out about the handful of families that have controlled the entire federal government for literal centuries.

The detective is the only one that concerns me. A city lawyer, state representative, and board supervisor wouldn't be able to influence the outcome of a trial. The detective, on the other hand, is literally a key participant in the trial.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

So some retard SJW also misapprehended the difference between a civil lawyer and a criminal prosecutor. Not too probative.

5
lawfag 5 points ago +5 / -0

I wouldn't bother sharing this specific image, because it's partly untrue. Little mistakes like this weaken our credibility.

I always research each claim and put it into my own words before sharing.

I'm wary of Posobiec. Wouldn't be surprised if he's compromised. He shares a lot of glowie shit disguised as innocent speculation.

2
lawfag 2 points ago +3 / -1

As a lawyer, all I needed to see was the words "maritime admirality law" to know that this is total nonsense. Statute can apply to natural and legal persons, full stop. You are not legally a "ship" or a "corporation". The fact that "birth" and "berth" are homonyms is not legally meaningful.

The sovereign citizen movement is a psyop that preys on people's legal illiteracy to prevent them from effectively accessing the judicial system. If you present any of this admirality law bullshit in court, not only are you virtually certain to lose your case, you might even be deemed a vexatious litigant and banned from starting lawsuits in the future. You can look up case law if you don't believe me. This is pure misinformation designed to entice well-meaning concerned citizens to unwittingly throw away their civil rights while looking stupid to the legal community in the process.

The best way you can secure your civil rights is to get a competent lawyer. Self representation and relying on "legal advice" from the internet is suicidal these days.

2
lawfag 2 points ago +2 / -0

The U.S. Code section numbers are different from the FD&C Act section numbers. The FDA website conveniently outlines the corresponding U.S. code provisions for each section of the FD&C Act: Here you go, fren.

So, section 564 of the FD&C Act translates to secs. 360bbb -3 to 360bbb-3-b of the U.S. Code, which you can navigate to from the webpage you linked.

6
lawfag 6 points ago +6 / -0

I can't find proof that Edward Antaramian is the DA or involved in the trial at all. Seems like he's just the lead civil lawyer for the city. Link.

A quick online search tells me the DA for Kenosha County is Michael D. Graveley. Link.

Still, I feel weird about the detective and mayor likely being related...

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just FYI, nowhere in the article does it say the book was a textbook or part of a school curriculum. It's just a book about periods. Not that I disagree with your underlying point... It's just that little misinterpretations like this give [them] ammunition to attempt to silence and discredit us.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hard to say - I've heard of this drug doing incredible things for very sick people. For one thing, it can totally reverse the effects of "COVID", much of which is likely vaxx-induced illness. But I'd err on the side of caution and assume that you're right.

21
lawfag 21 points ago +22 / -1

If a parasite is to blame for the jab causing infertility (since this parasite feeds on eggs), I'm convinced that Ivermectin will stop or even prevent those effects if it is given immediately after the parasite is injected.

The reason why the shelf life of the vaccines is so short is because the parasites need to be in a dormant stage of their life cycle to reduce the likelihood that they provoke an immune response when they're injected. As long as Ivermectin is consumed before the parasites are "activated" within the bloodstream, Ivermectin should reverse any parasite-related ill effects of the jab. Something to keep in mind as our lawmakers continue to tread the frail boundary between coerced and forced injections... That said, I'm sure that there are toxic and dangerous substances in those vials other than parasites.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly. The approval is in a way where the EUAs still stand. That said, they could even approve some drugs, like HCQ or Ivermectin, for treating certain aspects of the coof and the EUAs would still be valid, since those therapeutics would arguably be "inadequate" to completely prevent and cure the disease. The law itself is too open-ended. The blame falls on the legislators, in my opinion, for giving such broad discretion to an agency that is extremely vulnerable to regulatory capture. The corruption flows from congress, sorry to say.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

What you said about the Pfizer vaccine isn't true, and it's downplaying the gravity of the FDA's decision to approve it. An EUA can be granted if there are no "adequate, approved, and available" alternative therapeutics. Right now, the approved Pfizer vaxx and all the EUAs can coexist because the approved vaccine isn't "available" (i.e., not enough of it has been manufactured yet under the dumb new name to innoculate the population), and it isn't "adequate" for all populations (it's only approved for ages 16+, so the EUA covers 12-15 year olds).

To me, the fact that the FDA actually approved the vaxx AND approved it in a way where the EUAs are still technically valid is worse than it outright lying about the approval. At least lying would be a tacit acknowledgment that the regulatory agency knows that what it's doing is wrong.

2
lawfag 2 points ago +2 / -0

The rule of law in America has been in shambles since at least the 1960s, but has deteriorated especially rapidly within the past 25 years.

The country has reached a point where knowing your rights or even being competent at looking up case law or statute provides limited to no ammunition for protecting your inherent human rights, depending on the situation. This is something that everyone across the so-called "political spectrum" can readily observe and take issue with. Federal and state governments have extrajudicially murdered people who don't serve their interests out in the open for the better part of the last century.

I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the problem can be solved from the inside out. I'm not a doomer, though. History has proved that tyranny always loses to the will of the people.

2
lawfag 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kinda an unorthodox place to leave a note to self, don't you think?

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except you didn't say you like girly girls, faggot. You said you were repulsed by women wearing certain outfits.

Thing is, a bull dyke with long hair and a dress is still gonna be a bull dyke. See: Kamala. Likewise, a bombshell blonde is gonna exude feminity whether she's in a little black dress or overalls and a t-shirt. As another commenter said, womanhood transcends fashion. Sure, grooming and how a woman puts herself together matters, but being "girly", or, more importantly, fulfilling the duties of womanhood imposed by God, entails much more than clothing choices If attire alone can make or break your attraction to a woman, not only are you a flamer, but you're also a walking example of the precise cancer this post is about. You're no better than the degenerates who think putting on a dress can turn a man into a woman, and vice versa - you're parroting the same core ideology, just to different ends.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm sure there's a ton of fellas around Christopher Street or The Castro who agree with you... There's a word for men who are more attracted to women's outfits than women themselves...

5
lawfag 5 points ago +5 / -0

You think Facebook was shut down worldwide to curb the circulation of a photo collage of two unidentified sick babies alongside an Instagram post with the sauce conveniently cut out? Wouldn't Facebook just delete the image like it does with everything else?

0
lawfag 0 points ago +1 / -1

This Twitter account looks sketchy. 4 months old with >5K tweets, stock photo profile pic, and broken English tweets for a guy who supposedly works in the US. Also, he has UK professional designations despite going to school in Pakistan and listing his location as "New York".

I smell a shill... Just because the message supports your beliefs, and your beliefs aren't what the majority is willing to accept, doesn't mean the source is credible.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, basically, if it's a "screenshot" of a "news article", it's most likely bullshit.

5
lawfag 5 points ago +5 / -0

One thing I appreciate about this community is that people are willing to call out others' dubious sources and unsubstantiated claims. I only ever comment here when I see something I'm almost certain is untrue - that's even why I made my account in the first place. Otherwise, I quietly upvote.

It's kind of unfortunate how often internal debunking happens (e.g. a pinned post is proved to be false or questionable by a commenter), but I just see that as a necessary growing pain for a community built to unravel some of the world's most tightly held and complex secrets.

1
lawfag 1 point ago +1 / -0

NIH website names Dr. Francis S. Collins as the Director since 2009. Fauci hasn't ever been in charge of the organization as a whole - he is just the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is one of the 27 institutes and centers within the NIH.

8
lawfag 8 points ago +8 / -0

No voting machines at all. Pen and paper ballots.

by Quelle
-1
lawfag -1 points ago +1 / -2

2 Peter 1:16-21

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›