Why are you so fixated on Nick’s imagined W’s? I don’t see a bunch of people calling this a final ruling? I see you saying, “it’s not a final ruling” when no one called it that that I saw, except apparently a community post that has been corrected since then. Nick is almost always smug. What’s your focus on making some narrative up in the face of this good news?
I dont know why you got so pissy but a lot of people understood your post like a ruling because you added the bold "Denied". This is not good or bad news, the state was expected to ask for the denial of the motion to suppress anyway.
I am responding to @Desktop User2's comment calling it a "rare Rackets W." I do not believe it is or, in the alternative, it would be fleeting and meaningless one.
It´s obviously a shitpost.
While I agree it might sound a ridiculous, it has been explained on the Farms, by people far more knowledgeable than I, that is technically possible to have a situation where it would be upheld for one but not the other.
It's almost like a practicing lawyer, whatever his weight, knows more about these things than a morbidly obese deathfat non-practicing lawyer, like Nick, who gorges and eats an ENTIRE Dorito every day.
Nick and Kayla are the equivalent to a four year old covered in crumbs denying that he even knows that there is such a thing as a cookie jar.
I know you didn't explicitly call it a ruling but to be honest it's kind of misleading when you start a post with "Kayla case update" and then stamp it with a bold DENIED at the bottom. You can't blame people for assuming it was a court ruling instead of just a response by the prosecutor. Not trying to start shit or derail the thread but I thought it was a bit poorly thought.
I still love the pissybaby fit he threw that he HAD to try to object during the one hearing because his malpractice factory lawyer wasn't doing anything. Even after the judge slapped it down, not for a single microsecond did it occur to Balldo that the guy who practiced criminal law on a daily basis for years might know better than him when an objection is appropriate.
I expect people to read, I could see from the very first page who authored it, I think you expect hand holding, and that is especially lazy. It’s not my responsibility at all. The word denied doesn’t equate a ruling by a judge only. It’s also an inside joke about Nick. It’s also what the author of the documents recommended & the clear point of the post. You may not want to, but you are shitting up & derailing the thread by focusing on how you think I owe you something more.
Never. The coke demon is telling him he still has a chance in court
That’s the boring option. I’ll support the more fun option that he genuinely thinks he can prove the cops lied about the drugs. Then he will take it to trial and everything will come out in evidence.
I think that he'll take the plea deal if they drop the child neglect charge because it will allow him to own the chuds and say "I was never CONVICTED of neglecting my children, stalker childs!" But if they don't drop that charge he'll go full retard and take it to trial. Meanwhile we will prepare popcorn.
