Looks like Porky Pammy has gone back to spamming incoherent filings in her lawsuit, and whoo boy, has she reached new heights of insanity! She wants to sue the CIA now! @Useful_Mistake, you mind retrieving these latest examples of Spamela's incompetent attempts at legal arguments?
Looks like Porky Pammy has gone back to spamming incoherent filings in her lawsuit, and whoo boy, has she reached new heights of insanity! She wants to sue the CIA now! @Useful_Mistake, you mind retrieving these latest examples of Spamela's incompetent attempts at legal arguments?
Provided to YouTube by Mascot RecordsBlood In The Water · Shaman's HarvestSmokin' Hearts & Broken Guns℗ 2014 Mascot Music Productions and Publishing BVAuto-g...
I am not Hilary and I did not say that.
You know that is a random quote from a cow, right? I am guessing by the ignorant use of the word "disposable" instead of "disposal" it was probably Melinda Scott. She is, like you, some insane woman who loves to sue people (and lose) without any understanding of the law.
You don't want to hear from me? Delete this thread. It's quite simple. And it was never silent cause you created a venue for wackadoodles to stalk me. At least be man enough and take responsibility for your actions.
The only one you are hurting by posting here is yourself, Pam. We are all randos who will go about our lives while you seethe at home and sue your delusions.
Looks like Porky Pammy has gone back to spamming incoherent filings in her lawsuit, and whoo boy, has she reached new heights of insanity! She wants to sue the CIA now!
Yes, it might shock you, but I do own a mirror. I am quite proud of my handsome looks. I wouldn't call myself a 10, but maybe a 7, or so. Who knows. It's all subjective anyways.
Looks like Porky Pammy has gone back to spamming incoherent filings in her lawsuit, and whoo boy, has she reached new heights of insanity! She wants to sue the CIA now! @Useful_Mistake, you mind retrieving these latest examples of Spamela's incompetent attempts at legal arguments?
Not like I expected anything else, but the investigator admits she has no evidence, and just is winging it to see if she can get some dirt on orange man bad.
Not like I expected anything else, but the investigator admits she has no evidence, and just is winging it to see if she can get some dirt on orange man bad.
What does that have to do with anything? @Useful_Mistake said nothing even close to that.
Your thirst is pretty embarrassing Pam. Keep your sex delusions to yourself.
Documents as per the request of @Viridian . Note submitting two amended complaints on the same day is pretty frivolous.
This is nothing more than a shotgun pleading and as such (considering it is not your first one), the Gerogia appeals court in BUSH et al. v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON et al. has ruled it should be dismissed. Furthermore WEILAND v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE has ruled that such fillings are forbidden.
Third Amended Complaint :
No proof offered to the claim that Plaintiff somehow traced back two of Cia's hacking attempts. This portion is likely to get dismissed, or an amendment to it will be demanded.
No proof for the conspiracy claims between the defendants
No proof for anything.
All laws cited are deficient.
§ 16-11-39 is not a "Harassing communications" law but instead is a "Disorderly conduct" one. Pam just lied to the court.
Regardless, Disorderly conduct cannot apply because no violence was done, nor were any fighting words said, and she is not 14.
§ 16-5-9 does not apply because it would not place a reasonable person in fear of their lives, she was not harassed, nor followed, or put under surveillance.
O.C.G.A. 16-14-9 is fine
O.C.G.A. 16-6-23 does not apply because pam neither was raped, nor an assault has been made upon her with the intent of rape (she never alleged that in docs or here either)
I'm not sure if one can ask a court to give you a job you didn't before have, but hey, she's trying. By that I mean that you can't.
Gag orders may be "constitutionally permissible in exceptional circumstances", but they are "presumptively unconstitutional" WXIA–TV et al. v. STATE of Georgia et al., Georgia Supreme Court. I assert that this request will be denied.
She also added, without the permission of the court, at least three different defendants, those being Twitter, Samsung, Straight talk, that while she seeks sanctions against, for some reason she failed to properly include as defendants.
Opinion: Likely to be dismissed
Fourth amended complaint:
All the same problems (literally)
18 U.S.C. § 2261A does not apply for the same reasons I explained to Mel here (while that time my explanation was in regards to Kiwi Farms users, that should nevertheless apply to the defendants in this case)
Reread the complaint, and found an interesting part. Apparently she alleges that Null is Tony Robbins. I'm sure the court will be delighted to know that Null's real name appears on the third link in Google, and seems to not, in fact, be Tony Robbins.
She also removed 5 defendants.
Again, literally no proof presented to any allegation.
Opinion: Likely to get dismissed
Edit: Both complaints also suffer from being full of conclusory allegations (they do not need to be considered as true by the courts) which is grounds for dismissal under SCOTUS case Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore that very same case states that “naked assertion[ s ]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” will not be enough, thereby stating that Pam needs to prove her allegations.
Documents as per the request of @Viridian . Note submitting two amended complaints on the same day is pretty frivolous.
This is nothing more than a shotgun pleading and as such (considering it is not your first one), the Gerogia appeals court in BUSH et al. v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON et al. has ruled it should be dismissed. Furthermore WEILAND v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE has ruled that such fillings are forbidden.
Third Amended Complaint :
No proof offered to the claim that Plaintiff somehow traced back two of Cia's hacking attempts. This portion is likely to get dismissed, or an amendment to it will be demanded.
No proof for the conspiracy claims between the defendants
No proof for anything.
All laws cited are deficient.
§ 16-11-39 is not a "Harassing communications" law but instead is a "Disorderly conduct" one. Pam just lied to the court.
Regardless, Disorderly conduct cannot apply because no violence was done, nor were any fighting words said, and she is not 14.
§ 16-5-9 does not apply because it would not place a reasonable person in fear of their lives, she was not harassed, nor followed, or put under surveillance.
O.C.G.A. 16-14-9 is fine
O.C.G.A. 16-6-23 does not apply because pam neither was raped, nor an assault has been made upon her with the intent of rape (she never alleged that in docs or here either)
I'm not sure if one can ask a court to give you a job you didn't before have, but hey, she's trying. By that I mean that you can't.
Gag orders may be "constitutionally permissible in exceptional circumstances", but they are "presumptively unconstitutional" WXIA–TV et al. v. STATE of Georgia et al., Georgia Supreme Court. I assert that this request will be denied.
She also added, without the permission of the court, at least three different defendants, those being Twitter, Samsung, Straight talk, that while she seeks sanctions against, for some reason she failed to properly include as defendants.
Opinion: Likely to be dismissed
Fourth amended complaint:
All the same problems (literally)
18 U.S.C. § 2261A does not apply for the same reasons I explained to Mel here (while that time my explanation was in regards to Kiwi Farms users, that should nevertheless apply to the defendants in this case)
Reread the complaint, and found an interesting part. Apparently she alleges that Null is Tony Robbins. I'm sure the court will be delighted to know that Null's real name appears on the third link in Google, and seems to not, in fact, be Tony Robbins.
She also removed 5 defendants.
Again, literally no proof presented to any allegation.
Opinion: Likely to get dismissed
Edit: Both complaints also suffer from being full of conclusory allegations (they do not need to be considered as true by the courts) which is grounds for dismissal under SCOTUS case Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore that very same case states that “naked assertion[ s ]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” will not be enough, thereby stating that Pam needs to prove her allegations.
Documents as per the request of @Viridian . Note submitting two amended complaints on the same day is pretty frivolous.
This is nothing more than a shotgun pleading and as such (considering it is not your first one), the Gerogia appeals court in BUSH et al. v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON et al. has ruled it should be dismissed. Furthermore WEILAND v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE has ruled that such fillings are forbidden.
Third Amended Complaint :
No proof offered to the claim that Plaintiff somehow traced back two of Cia's hacking attempts. This portion is likely to get dismissed, or an amendment to it will be demanded.
No proof for the conspiracy claims between the defendants
No proof for anything.
All laws cited are deficient.
§ 16-11-39 is not a "Harassing communications" law but instead is a "Disorderly conduct" one. Pam just lied to the court.
Regardless, Disorderly conduct cannot apply because no violence was done, nor were any fighting words said, and she is not 14.
§ 16-5-9 does not apply because it would not place a reasonable person in fear of their lives, she was not harassed, nor followed, or put under surveillance.
O.C.G.A. 16-14-9 is fine
O.C.G.A. 16-6-23 does not apply because pam neither was raped, nor an assault has been made upon her with the intent of rape (she never alleged that in docs or here either)
I'm not sure if one can ask a court to give you a job you didn't before have, but hey, she's trying. By that I mean that you can't.
Gag orders may be "constitutionally permissible in exceptional circumstances", but they are "presumptively unconstitutional" WXIA–TV et al. v. STATE of Georgia et al., Georgia Supreme Court. I assert that this request will be denied.
She also added, without the permission of the court, at least three different defendants, those being Twitter, Samsung, Straight talk, that while she seeks sanctions against, for some reason she failed to properly include as defendants.
Opinion: Likely to be dismissed
Fourth amended complaint:
All the same problems (literally)
18 U.S.C. § 2261A does not apply for the same reasons I explained to Mel here (while that time my explanation was in regards to Kiwi Farms users, that should nevertheless apply to the defendants in this case)
Reread the complaint, and found an interesting part. Apparently she alleges that Null is Tony Robbins. I'm sure the court will be delighted to know that Null's real name appears on the third link in Google, and seems to not, in fact, be Tony Robbins.
She also removed 5 defendants.
Again, literally no proof presented to any allegation.
Opinion: Likely to get dismissed
Edit: Both complaints also suffer from being full of conclusory allegations (they do not need to be considered as true by the courts) which is grounds for dismissal under SCOTUS case Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore that very same case states that “naked assertion[ s ]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” will not be enough, thereby stating that Pam needs to prove her allegations.
Has not been approved, and therefore does not prevent me from speaking about you. However, like I said, Georgia Supreme Court's have declared them to be "pressumed unconstitutional" and only granted in "exceptional cases". This is not it.
What part of that is desperate? You wrote two horrid pleadings, I applied law and gave my opinion on it. If you had a life outside the farms, you would know that dialogue and critique is normal.
I am not part of the CIA. I am not part of the lawsuit, and your courts have no power to demand my opinion as of now.
That being said, CIA, FBI never get punished. CIA at one point ran a drug empire and it was never punished.
We are not interfiering in US due process. You are asking to suspend the First Amendment because you don't like us critiquing your work. That is literally what the 1st is created to protect. That is why Georgia courts see gag orders as unconstitutional.
If you did you'd have posted it in your pleading. If you had evidence and were stupid enough to not show it to the court, then you are quite literally mentally retarded.
Has not been approved, and therefore does not prevent me from speaking about you. However, like I said, Georgia Supreme Court's have declared them to be "pressumed unconstitutional" and only granted in "exceptional cases". This is not it.
What part of that is desperate? You wrote two horrid pleadings, I applied law and gave my opinion on it. If you had a life outside the farms, you would know that dialogue and critique is normal.
I am not part of the CIA. I am not part of the lawsuit, and your courts have no power to demand my opinion as of now.
That being said, CIA, FBI never get punished. CIA at one point ran a drug empire and it was never punished.
We are not interfiering in US due process. You are asking to suspend the First Amendment because you don't like us critiquing your work. That is literally what the 1st is created to protect. That is why Georgia courts see gag orders as unconstitutional.
If you did you'd have posted it in your pleading. If you had evidence and were stupid enough to not show it to the court, then you are quite literally mentally retarded.
The cia evidence has been seen. And you are confusing state of Georgia Superior court with US District Federal court. Not the same thing. I hope you haven't been sending briefs to the State of Georgia Superior courts as they have no jurisdiction.
Seen by who? You didn't show it to the court and you most certainly did not show it to us.
Pam, you can't even understand how emails work and you want me to believe that you "backtraced" hacking attempts from the CIA? LOL
Seen by who? You didn't show it to the court and you most certainly did not show it to us.
Pam, you can't even understand how emails work and you want me to believe that you "backtraced" hacking attempts from the CIA? LOL
Trust me, I am not confusing anything. GA caselaw applies. For the sake of argument, assuming it doesn't, the SCOTUS cases that I cited still do apply. In regards to the Gag orders SCOTUS cases like Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) say more or less the same thing. The case says "Any [gag order] comes to this Court with a 'heavy presumption' against its constitutional validity" among other things.
So, even if you were correct, my points still stand.
I have literally:
1. No reason to do so
2. not met the requirments for the briefs to be considered (namely this case's resolution has literally no effect on me).
Also, I am not retarded and I am able to read which court this lawsuit takes place.
I also see that you could neither debunk any of my arguments, or counter-argue your supposed retardation of not providing evidence to courts.
As usual you have no reading comprehension, I didn't say you had to show it to us. I said you showed it to no one, not even the court so I asked who has seen it?
Your delusions don't count and cannot be called to testify.
@Useful_Mistake, you mind retrieving these latest examples of Spamela's incompetent attempts at legal arguments?
youtu.be
