- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
Neither do I. I just asked in the lawtube thread if anybody bothered to watch.Saw these in the Lawtube thread. I thought he snaked but I don't know.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Neither do I. I just asked in the lawtube thread if anybody bothered to watch.Saw these in the Lawtube thread. I thought he snaked but I don't know.
You just don't get it. These are famous celebrities. Trend-setters even. Just like Johnny Depp.She just looks so fucking white trash. I've thought that ever since I first saw her but didn't feel like cluttering the thread with another "sHeS uGlY aNd lOw ClAsS" post here.
But Jesus fucking Christ I can't keep my mouth quiet any longer. That tattoo is God damn horrendous and looks like something that would be on a tee shirt that a 60 year old man who eats at least 4 meals at a Cracker Barrel a week would wear. Throw the fact that the wolves symbolize her throuple and it's just too fucking much for me to comprehend how someone would choose to look this way.
But what's worse?
A) Choosing to look like that
-OR-
B) willingly fucking a woman who looks like that
not only fucking a woman who looks like that but her dysgenic cuck husband as wellB) willingly fucking a woman who looks like that
It's a serious violation of the RPCs, particularly 1.8(f), relating to conflicts of interest.I would dearly love to know who chose Kayla's lawyer and to what extent they're advising her to take actions which will protect Nick.
Or to put it briefly, the lawyer's client is the one he is representing. If he puts the interests of a third party over that, even if that third party is paying his fees, he's committing a violation of RPC 1.8(f) and faces disciplinary measures up to and including disbarment.(f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent or the acceptance of compensation from another is impliedly authorized by the nature of the representation;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 1.6.
She's lost all presumption of a benefit of the doubt. If she gets rid of the rage twig, protects her kids, or even just tard wrangles him into some degree of sanity, then maybe she gets it back. For now, she's on the same level of Hell as he is.She is just a dumb bitch tied to a lying faggot forever, I dont know why people keep giving her the benefit of doubt...
I don't understand how she can't see Nick is trying to replace her with this new woman, destroying their shared life of 20 years and 5 kids. I don't get how she can't feel angry at all about that. It's pathetic.She's lost all presumption of a benefit of the doubt. If she gets rid of the rage twig, protects her kids, or even just tard wrangles him into some degree of sanity, then maybe she gets it back. For now, she's on the same level of Hell as he is.
He did not say "maybe" I should talk to a lawyer. That was a quote from an entirely different case. He said what he actually said.Here is a concurring opinion of the State Supreme Court denial:
There's also a couple of substances that cause delusions like this.There's a couple personality disorders like this.
If he does believe it, a combination of arrogant self-delusion and drugs convinced him of it. Narcs will do this splitting thing where they eventually start to believe lies they've told long enough to preserve their fragile self-image.Nick doesn't believe he's really being persecuted by the government.
the lawyer dog thing is dumb but why don't you just give me a lawyer isn't exactly emphatically and explicitly asking for a lawyer. It's fucking retarded legalese but he didn't actually ask them to get him a lawyer, and when dealing with the government you have to assume everyone involved is autisticHe did not say "maybe" I should talk to a lawyer. That was a quote from an entirely different case. He said what he actually said.
“"if y'all, this is how I feel, if y'all think I did it, I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what's up."” State v. Demesme, 228 So. 3d 1206, (La. 2017).
The concurrence cited the case where the defendant actually did say "maybe" which actually is ambiguous to claim that "give me a lawyer, dog" meant he was actually asking for a "lawyer dog" and this was "ambiguous" according to some reasoning that might make sense to a crackhead.
From Aaron's stories, which are probably more true than not, that marriage wasn't exactly happy to begin with and she was the one that wanted to explore options.I don't understand how she can't see Nick is trying to replace her with this new woman, destroying their shared life of 20 years and 5 kids. I don't get how she can't feel angry at all about that. It's pathetic.
That's more practical advice than saying what the Louisiana courts here did is okay.the lawyer dog thing is dumb but why don't you just give me a lawyer isn't exactly emphatically and explicitly asking for a lawyer. It's fucking retarded legalese but he didn't actually ask them to get him a lawyer, and when dealing with the government you have to assume everyone involved is autistic
nick is a retard, but people here really don't understand how to read,
>says kiwifags don't know how to readWhere the fuck are you getting any of this (other than Nick's fantasies)? The warrant does not say "I watched the suspect's video on the suspect's YouTube channel," it says:
If you sent Nick to a psychiatrist they would have to spend months just diagnosing him.There is a condition diagnosable where one feels that there is a conspiracy against them... I cannot recall what it may be called...
that's why you should practice saying some form of "I am invoking my right to counsel I will identify myself and comply with reasonable law enforcement commands, but I will not answer any questions related to the investigation, thank you." Be prepared. You don't expect to end up in these situations but if you do if you have rehearsed it helps when your adrenaline is running.That's more practical advice than saying what the Louisiana courts here did is okay.
And yes, I'd advise if you're going to exercise your right to counsel, you quite simply say "I am exercising my Sixth Amendment right to counsel immediately and demand this conversation end" and then fall completely silent. If they then try to continue, inform them that they are violating your constitutional rights and again demand counsel. That should then be your only response.
If they're recording this shit by policy, even better, because they are not going to fuck with that, probably not even LA Ramparts Division pigs even if you're black.
But most people don't have that shit memorized and shouldn't be expected to. Basic rights should not require what Scalia might call the "talismanic invocation" of specific magic words, like casting some spell or carving Elbereth.
He also said that they are extremely codependent, which I find to be highly plausible. Even if the love has faded, there's an attachment of decades that might be hard to shake--especially since they seemingly enable one another's addict behavior.From Aaron's stories, which are probably more true than not, that marriage wasn't exactly happy to begin with and she was the one that wanted to explore options.
God, Nick is such a nigger. Blacks make the retarded arguments and refuse to take responsibility for their failures because they refuse to understand "per capita". Nick does the exact same thing because he refuses to understand "metabolite".EVS says that Nick told him that the police touched his daughter's hair with cocaine on their gloves and that is why his daughter tested positive.
This is idiocy. At least if anyone believes that might work.Null already said what his thought was.
It was that they would let Kayla plead out and claim they were her drugs so that Nick and April could plea innocent over Kayla’s admission of guilt, then turn around and tell the internet that Kayla lied and it was all Aaron’s drugs
It's not snaking to realize you were tricked by some scumbag into thinking he was something he wasn't (in this case an actual human).Saw these in the Lawtube thread. I thought he snaked but I don't know.
I'm sure she actually does. She's just succumbed to it and decided she's okay with her kids getting harmed by their shitty abusive father. And perhaps she's done more than we know about herself in that department.I don't understand how she can't see Nick is trying to replace her with this new woman, destroying their shared life of 20 years and 5 kids. I don't get how she can't feel angry at all about that. It's pathetic.
Wrong again, Kiwi child. Nick MADE Joe and what Joe is doing to him now is classic snaking. When Nick needs him most, Joe caved and sided with the Farms. If Nick went live and ripped Joe a new asshole I'd really have to respect him for it. It's the man thing to do.It's not snaking to realize you were tricked by some scumbag into thinking he was something he wasn't (in this case an actual human).
Just wait until Ethan Ralph finds out where that no good jew Joe NoLogic lives.Wrong again, Kiwi child. Nick MADE Joe and what Joe is doing to him now is classic snaking. When Nick needs him most, Joe caved and sided with the Farms. If Nick went live and ripped Joe a new asshole I'd really have to respect him for it. It's the man thing to do.
gOoDLawGiC!!! gOoDLawGiC!!! More like good dick sucker. Bish.