Trainwreck Pamela Swain / DocHoliday1977 / MsPhoenix1969 / Observer1977 / danishlace2003 / Writer_thriller - Victim of grand #MeToo conspiracy, litigious wannabe starfucker, off her meds and online

[Useful_Mistake]

From a psychological research point of view, people who are used to being in power and have it taken away from them tend to have mental breakdowns ranging from the emotional attachment their personality had to being in power and having power over people.

The people who've posted on this thread exhibit these tendencies.

They literally do not, and no reasonable person would come to such (your) a conclusion.

For the depths of nonsense these posters have descended, these posters have suffered with hidden personality disorders and mental disorder ailments for years.

That fits you well actually.

Anyway, I see you could not counter a single point I made about your suit's obvious flaws. If I see them, Pam, so does the judge.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

They literally do not, and no reasonable person would come to such (your) a conclusion.

That fits you well actually.

Anyway, I see you could not counter a single point I made about your suit's obvious flaws. If I see them, Pam, so does the judge.

And here's the "I know you are in what am i" return.

It doesn't fit me, Hillary, because I've never held a political office or any type of position of power. That's the blaring factual problem. And it shows your inability to provide actual cognitive thoughtful responses.

 

[Whale Spotter]

From a psychological research point of view, people who are used to being in power and have it taken away from them tend to have mental breakdowns ranging from the emotional attachment their personality had to being in power and having power over people.

The people who've posted on this thread exhibit these tendencies.

Which psychological research, Pam?
Either ways, you don't have the data necessary to make such ridiculous claims about anons on a thread. You also lack the qualifications and the brains to come to any conclusion.
Armchair psychology done by someone with 0 self awareness is laughable.

For the depths of nonsense these posters have descended, these posters have suffered with hidden personality disorders and mental disorder ailments for years. And instead of confronting these issues, they've been surrounded by people seeking their own gain and stature by enabling them. Now, there seems to be cognitive deficiencies due to prolonged disregard of said mental and personality disorders.

Projection.

And here's the "I know you are in what am i" return.

You are deflecting the fact that you have no replies for the legal arguments he made. Pathetic Pam.

It doesn't fit me, Hillary, because I've never held a political office or any type of position of power. That's the blaring factual problem. And it shows your inability to provide actual cognitive thoughtful responses.

The second description fits you to the T.
Hidden personality disorder: Check (you don't even remember the claims you make)
Mental ailments: Check (you have plenty of those)
Enablement: CHECK (Your mom sure enables you.)
Cognitive deficiencies: CHECK (your inability to read and comprehend what is written by people)

Also, Hilary is not here

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Which psychological research, Pam?
Either ways, you don't have the data necessary to make such ridiculous claims about anons on a thread. You also lack the qualifications and the brains to come to any conclusion.
Armchair psychology done by someone with 0 self awareness is laughable.

Projection.

You are deflecting the fact that you have no replies for the legal arguments he made. Pathetic Pam.

The second description fits you to the T.
Hidden personality disorder: Check (you don't even remember the claims you make)
Mental ailments: Check (you have plenty of those)
Enablement: CHECK (Your mom sure enables you.)
Cognitive deficiencies: CHECK (your inability to read and comprehend what is written by people)

Also, Hilary is not here

Au contrare....this thread is a qualitative case study in behaviors.

So with all those "supposed mental ailments" according to you, it's ok to force me into a sexual compromised state?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

And here's the "I know you are in what am i" return.

This is literally not a coherent sentence.

It doesn't fit me, Hillary,

You said I was Rudy, moron, keep up with your delusions. You accuse @Whale Spotter of being Hillary, not me.

because I've never held a political office or any type of position of power.

And can you prove any of us have? No you can't.

. And it shows your inability to provide actual cognitive thoughtful responses.

You want to argue about factual and thoughtful responses? Respond to, and counter these facts:

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.

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.

Legal Opinion:

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.

Either ways, you don't have the data necessary to make such ridiculous claims about anons on a thread. You also lack the qualifications and the brains to come to any conclusion.
Armchair psychology done by someone with 0 self awareness is laughable.

Exactly.

Au contrare....this thread is a qualitative case study in behaviors

You really have no idea how scientific case studies are conducted do you?

it's ok to force me into a sexual compromised state?

We aren't doing that though. In fact we have specifically denied wanting anything sexual from you.

 

[Whale Spotter]

Au contrare....this thread is a qualitative case study in behaviors.

So with all those "supposed mental ailments" according to you, it's ok to force me into a sexual compromised state?

It's au contraire.
You are confused as to what qualitative data is. Not surprising.
The behavioural case studies you can observe in this thread would not match with the kind of mental ailments you are talking about. If anything, you can observe shit posting behaviour. That is all.

You really have no idea how scientific case studies are conducted do you?

No she does not, she took a psych 101 class and thinks she is qualified to diagnose anyone of anything.

So with all those "supposed mental ailments" according to you, it's ok to force me into a sexual compromised state?

No one wants that, Pam. Disgusting.
Your mental ailments are making you believe we want that, when many of us have told you that we would rather eat dirt off our lawns.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

This is literally not a coherent sentence.

You said I was Rudy, moron, keep up with your delusions. You accuse @Whale Spotter of being Hillary, not me.

And can you prove any of us have? No you can't.

You want to argue about factual and thoughtful responses? Respond to, and counter these facts:





Exactly.

You really have no idea how scientific case studies are conducted do you?

We aren't doing that though. In fact we have specifically denied wanting anything sexual from you.

That's not what previous communications has spoken. It's exactly the opposite. And instead of ceasing said communications, everyone involved created this thread to continue communications and escalating the communications to admittance to stalking, harassment. Even all the contacting Leo's and judges to even allow to violate American citizen's rights and privacy. And as always, all comments and communications can be used against you in court.

Now, what do you have to say for yourself?

It's au contraire.
You are confused as to what qualitative data is. Not surprising.
The behavioural case studies you can observe in this thread would not match with the kind of mental ailments you are talking about. If anything, you can observe shit posting behaviour. That is all.

No she does not, she took a psych 101 class and thinks she is qualified to diagnose anyone of anything.

No one wants that, Pam. Disgusting.
Your mental ailments are making you believe we want that, when many of us have told you that we would rather eat dirt off our lawns.

I can get you a fork and a spoon for your dirt meal.

 

[Whale Spotter]

That's not what previous communications has spoken.

Is this even English anymore?

And instead of ceasing said communications, everyone involved created this thread to continue communications and escalating the communications to admittance to stalking, harassment. Even all the contacting Leo's and judges to even allow to violate American citizen's rights and privacy. And as always, all comments and communications can be used against you in court.

We didn't create the thread, none of this happened. You come here and engage with us voluntarily.

Now, what do you have to say for yourself?

I say that you have nothing and you are insane.

I can get you a fork and a spoon for your dirt meal.

No need, as I will fortunately never be in the situation where I have to make that choice.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Is this even English anymore?


We didn't create the thread, none of this happened. You come here and engage with us voluntarily.

I say that you have nothing and you are insane.

No need, as I will fortunately never be in the situation where I have to make that choice.

I say I have everything and then some thanks you idiots providing me more than I could ever imagine.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Pam, can we finally rent you a giggolo?

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Um no. I received a message about this thread. I never came here on my own volition.

Someone notified me on facebook. It was probably a Harvey fake account.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That's not what previous communications has spoken.

I literally don't care what some people who emailed you from outside of forum say. You literally cannot prove in court or outside, that, for example, I want something sexual from you, because I have very clearly stated that I do not.

It's exactly the opposite. And instead of ceasing said communications, everyone involved created this thread to continue communications and escalating the communications to admittance to stalking, harassment.

1. We do not fit any of the legal definitions of stalking or harassment, as I have shown you numerous times
2. We have never admitted to any of that.
3. We are allowed to talk to you on forums and there is literally nothing you can do about it, bar leaving.

Even all the contacting Leo's

I have no idea who he is.

and judges to even allow to violate American citizen's rights and privacy.

None of us have violated any rights, nor any privacy rights as defined in law.

And as always, all comments and communications can be used against you in court.

No they quite literally can't. Anon forum posts are not "good faith" evidence - St. Amant v. Thompson

I see that you conveniently failed to counter my facts, therefore making yourself a hypocrite.

Now, what do you have to say for yourself?

That I know law, and you don't.
Also, I did nothing wrong.

Is this even English anymore?

At this point you gotta start guessing the meanings because her writing capabilities keep deteriorating.

I say I have everything and then some thanks you idiots providing me more than I could ever imagine.

Yet you failed to provide anything to the courts.

Um no. I received a message about this thread. I never came here on my own volition.

Yes you did. You made a choice to come here and post. That is what "your own volition means.

Someone notified me on facebook. It was probably a Harvey fake account.
View attachment 1920227

So? You still made a choice to come here.

 

[Whale Spotter]

I say I have everything and then some thanks you idiots providing me more than I could ever imagine.

Sure Pam, with all you have I predict you will get laughed out of court (again).

Um no. I received a message about this thread. I never came here on my own volition.

You could have ignored the link, no one forced you here. No one forced you to make an account and start posting practically daily.
So, no one forced you.

It was probably a Harvey fake account.

Nope, Harvey doesn't know you exist. A troll more likely.

At this point you gotta start guessing the meanings because her writing capabilities keep deteriorating.

It gets worst every day.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It gets worst every day.

You figure it will get so bad that it will overflow into being super good?

 

[Whale Spotter]

You figure it will get so bad that it will overflow into being super good?

One can only hope, if it did then we wouldn't have to explain to her that we are being sarcastic.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

One can only hope, if it did then we wouldn't have to explain to her that we are being sarcastic.

Worst case scenario, maybe she'll learn? I mean even animals are capable of that, so there is still hope.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I literally don't care what some people who emailed you from outside of forum say. You literally cannot prove in court or outside, that, for example, I want something sexual from you, because I have very clearly stated that I do not.

1. We do not fit any of the legal definitions of stalking or harassment, as I have shown you numerous times
2. We have never admitted to any of that.
3. We are allowed to talk to you on forums and there is literally nothing you can do about it, bar leaving.

I have no idea who he is.

None of us have violated any rights, nor any privacy rights as defined in law.

No they quite literally can't. Anon forum posts are not "good faith" evidence - St. Amant v. Thompson

I see that you conveniently failed to counter my facts, therefore making yourself a hypocrite.

That I know law, and you don't.
Also, I did nothing wrong.

At this point you gotta start guessing the meanings because her writing capabilities keep deteriorating.

Yet you failed to provide anything to the courts.

Yes you did. You made a choice to come here and post. That is what "your own volition means.

So? You still made a choice to come here.

And you made a choice to stalk and harass. You can't turn everything on everyone else anymore Alan. You will have andwerfor *your* actions. Here's a simple solution to not being held accountable for your actions, you disgusting pig, don't do it.
And yes. I can.

Alan Dershowitz, Hillary Clinton, you are pigs of the rankest sort and trust me, no one likes you. You're trash.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

And you made a choice to stalk and harass.

Nope. I did not make such a choice because I simply do not fit the legal definition of either of the words.
Law doesn't care about your feelings.

You can't turn everything on everyone else anymore

I'm not doing that.

Alan.

Keep up with your delusions.

You will have andwerfor *your* actions.

And what actions are those? For I have not committed any crime.

Here's a simple solution to not being held accountable for your actions, you disgusting pig, don't do it.

Good thing, then, that I had not committed any crimes, huh, moron?

And yes. I can.

Pray tell, what can you do? Realistically, I mean.

Alan Dershowitz, Hillary Clinton, you are pigs of the rankest sort and trust me, no one likes you. You're trash.

They aren't here.
While I don't know about Alan, Hillary is still extremely popular with democrats and surprisingly some republicans too.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Nope. I did not make such a choice because I simply do not fit the legal definition of either of the words.
Law doesn't care about your feelings.

I'm not doing that.

Keep up with your delusions.

And what actions are those? For I have not committed any crime.

Good thing, then, that I had not committed any crimes, huh, moron?

Pray tell, what can you do? Realistically, I mean.

They aren't here.
While I don't know about Alan, Hillary is still extremely popular with democrats and surprisingly some republicans too.

My feelings? Who mentioned my feelings? No, the law doesn't care about you, your ethnicity, nor your past career. I don't care if you received 2 doctorates from Oxford in England, if you heist an atm for its money, you'll get arrested.

Harassment and stalking are crimes, Alan and you have a history of stalking and harassing victims in court cases procuring a restraining order on your head, so don't sit here acting like an innocent family man being wrongfully accused.

Hillary also has a past history of harassment and corruption, so she can shove that up her gaping ass.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

No, the law doesn't care about you, your ethnicity, nor your past career.

They do actually. There are specific laws, for example, with no other purpose but to force black/gay/etc quotas. Or ones created to give blacks an unfair advantage in schooling. Affirmative action anyone?

I don't care if you received 2 doctorates from Oxford in England, if you heist an atm for its money, you'll get arrested.

This is relevant how?

Harassment and stalking are crimes,

Which I have not committed and you have constantly failed to prove that I have.

Alan and you have a history of stalking and harassing victims in court cases procuring a restraining order on your head, so don't sit here acting like an innocent family man being wrongfully accused.

Not alan, and no I don't.

Hillary also has a past history of harassment and corruption, so she can shove that up her gaping ass.

And yet she walks free.