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

[Useful_Mistake]

No. And a faggot like you has no self awareness.

"You can't say mean things to me" says Pam as she yells out homophobic slurs.

But it's going to get funny real soon.

Yup, seeing lolcow's suit's get tossed out is funny, I agree.

 

[Immortal Technique]

I submit to the KiwiFarms court. Proof everything was consensual and Piggy Pam was asking for it. You'll never win in court Pam. I have tons more photos Pam, so stop spreading your lies. This is a forum of truth and honesty.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

"You can't say mean things to me" says Pam as she yells out homophobic slurs.

Yup, seeing lolcow's suit's get tossed out is funny, I agree.

Still don't get it do you? You're going to figure it out someday and you'll realize you're an idiot.

I submit to the KiwiFarms court. Proof everything was consensual and Piggy Pam was asking for it. You'll never win in court Pam. I have tons more photos Pam, so stop spreading your lies. This is a forum of truth and honesty.
View attachment 1925917

No you have tons of photoshop.

You still dont know the type of suit it is. Drunk much? Meth it up some more, it's making you smarter.

Current brief submitted today. Maintains that harassment in emails, social media, and other is not protected free speech and this has been determined in criminal, civil, and in appeals courts.
It also links to lawless politicians disregarding law to allow political and affluent friends the ability to commit heinous crimes ranging from individual stalking to mass group insurrection.

And the case is in ARBITRATION, because the violence nature of the online stalking is connected to Weinstein. The courts are aware of my evidence.....the death threats, repeated sexual threats, the use of email and online means to continue violent, harassing, and unwanted communications.

I've tried to tell you this thread is your most damaging evidence but you chose to keep it, didnt you Tony and Josh, right? No way to delete it, huh?

Ok. This thread exists on a site that aided in organizing the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol.

Have a great day.




Oh and no good on trying to blacken my character with all this.

It was 20+ years ago. I'm in my 40s now and I'm proud to say, I've grown the fuck up.

 

[Analog Devolved]

I submit to the KiwiFarms court. Proof everything was consensual and Piggy Pam was asking for it. You'll never win in court Pam. I have tons more photos Pam, so stop spreading your lies. This is a forum of truth and honesty.
View attachment 1925917

That photo looks legit and not like a bogus photoshop. Pam photographed with Harvey. Finally the truth comes out.

Still don't get it do you? You're going to figure it out someday and you'll realize you're an idiot.

Like someday you'll take your meds, right?

No you have tons of photoshop.

You still dont know the type of suit it is. Drunk much? Meth it up some more, it's making you smarter.

Let me just sprinkle some meth into my coffee cup of straight booze here. "You still don't know much about the type of suit." Lmao What a clown.

You can't insult any of us here Pam.

Current brief submitted today. Maintains that harassment in emails, social media, and other is not protected free speech and this has been determined in criminal, civil, and in appeals courts.
It also links to lawless politicians disregarding law to allow political and affluent friends the ability to commit heinous crimes ranging from individual stalking to mass group insurrection.

And the case is in ARBITRATION, because the violence nature of the online stalking is connected to Weinstein. The courts are aware of my evidence.....the death threats, repeated sexual threats, the use of email and online means to continue violent, harassing, and unwanted communications.

I've tried to tell you this thread is your most damaging evidence but you chose to keep it, didnt you Tony and Josh, right? No way to delete it, huh?

Ok. This thread exists on a site that aided in organizing the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol.

Have a great day.

View attachment 1926348
View attachment 1926349

My day just got a lot better. You chimped out and sent the judge a bunch of unsubstantiated rants. You're so MATI you don't realize they are going to send that lolsuit straight into the trash.

Oh and no good on trying to blacken my character with all this.

It was 20+ years ago. I'm in my 40s now and I'm proud to say, I've grown the fuck up.

View attachment 1926378

None of that happened.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

And as you merge into all these togeth

That photo looks legit and not like a bogus photoshop. Pam photographed with Harvey. Finally the truth comes out.



Like someday you'll take your meds, right?



Let me just sprinkle some meth into my coffee cup of straight booze here. "You still don't know much about the type of suit." Lmao What a clown.

You can't insult any of us here Pam.

My day just got a lot better. You chimped out and sent the judge a bunch of unsubstantiated rants. You're so MATI you don't realize they are going to send that lolsuit straight into the trash.

None of that happened.

If none of this happened, Tony, why are you here?

You had no clue, did you?

 

[Analog Devolved]

And as you merge into all these togeth

If none of this happened, Tony, why are you here?

You had no clue, did you?

I'm not Tony. I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

I am not Tony Robbins.
NONE of your claims are legitimate.

I'm here because stuff like your legal fiction makes me laugh. You provide zero evidence and it's like the autistic manifesto of a turbosped.

 

[niggers]

lazy, 2 pages?

better schzios than you put in way more effort than this.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I'm not Tony. I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

I am not Tony Robbins.
NONE of your claims are legitimate.

I'm here because stuff like your legal fiction makes me laugh. You provide zero evidence and it's like the autistic manifesto of a turbosped.

Is that right?

lazy, 2 pages?

better schzios than you put in way more effort than this.

Oh the butthurt is real.

 

[Analog Devolved]

Is that right?



Oh the butthurt is real.

Yes, that's right. It was retarded as hell I didn't understand any of it.

What does any of this have to do with the totally based patriots that liberated the capitol? Have you been talking to Bryan? Lmao

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Yes, that's right. It was retarded as hell I didn't understand any of it.

What does any of this have to do with the totally based patriots that liberated the capitol? Have you been talking to Bryan? Lmao

Why don't you "resarrrrch" it and all my stuff online....and post it.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Still don't get it do you? You're going to figure it out someday and you'll realize you're an idiot.

When will you learn to reply in a way that human beings could understand? I literally have no idea what you mean.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

When will you learn to reply in a way that human beings could understand? I literally have no idea what you mean.

Read my post, you can not? Maybe no grammar you took as buttboy in juvy, you did.

 

[Analog Devolved]

Why don't you "resarrrrch" it and all my stuff online....and post it.

You post it for us. I don't need to research you. I know you're a loon who thinks everyone is a celebrity stalker.

Read my post, you can not? Maybe no grammar you took as buttboy in juvy, you did.

Pam is big mad tonight. She knows her legal tardifesto is a bunch of bologna and its not fooling anyone.

The judge is going to read it and laugh.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

You post it for us. I don't need to research you. I know you're a loon who thinks everyone is a celebrity stalker.


Pam is big mad tonight. She knows her legal tardifesto is a bunch of bologna and its not fooling anyone.

The judge is going to read it and laugh.

You think so? Have you personally called the judge and asked him off the record?
And really, who says "loon"?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Current brief submitted today. Maintains that harassment in emails, social media, and other is not protected free speech and this has been determined in criminal, civil, and in appeals courts.
It also links to lawless politicians disregarding law to allow political and affluent friends the ability to commit heinous crimes ranging from individual stalking to mass group insurrection.

And the case is in ARBITRATION, because the violence nature of the online stalking is connected to Weinstein. The courts are aware of my evidence.....the death threats, repeated sexual threats, the use of email and online means to continue violent, harassing, and unwanted communications.

I've tried to tell you this thread is your most damaging evidence but you chose to keep it, didnt you Tony and Josh, right? No way to delete it, huh?

Ok. This thread exists on a site that aided in organizing the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol.

Have a great day.

View attachment 1926348
View attachment 1926349

I attached the mentioned document, updated the CourtListener link and posted the entire doc
@Viridian you might be interested in this.

Spoiler: Fifth amended complaint

Legal analysis:
Once again, this is a shotgun pleading (forbidden under WEILAND v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, and subject to dismissal under BUSH et al. v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON et al.).

Like always, it is conclusory and without any provided proof, which is subject to dismissal, and need not be considered. under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
The rest of her citations have been covered here and here, and here
Also, none of us admitted of having any influence over the judges and even if we had, it would not be permissible as evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

EDIT: All of your criminal cases still fail, because:
1. Crimes were committed there, and we haven't.
2. Free Speech applies to us far more than to them, considering you in all likelihood are a limited purpose public figure
3. We are anons, and anons have a higher free speech right to criticize oppression (in this case of courts and attempted on our free speech), see TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA(1960)

Maintains that harassment in emails, social media, and other is not protected free speech and this has been determined in criminal, civil, and in appeals courts.

We have not committed any of those, your cited cases were cited poorly, and free speech is superior than federal crimes. See United States v Alvarez. More about this case can be found in my summary(at the bottom of my post) here.

It also links

It literally does not.

The courts are aware of my evidence.....the death threats, repeated sexual threats, the use of email and online means to continue violent, harassing, and unwanted communications.

I sincerely doubt it since you had yet to present any.

I've tried to tell you this thread is your most damaging evidence but you chose to keep it, didnt you Tony and Josh, right? No way to delete it, huh?

We have no done anything illegal here, and yes, we cannot delete this thread.

Ok. This thread exists on a site that aided in organizing the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol.

Proof, please, because even FBI admits that was Facebook.

lazy, 2 pages?

better schzios than you put in way more effort than this.

5. But three of them are word for word copies of her last complaints.

Read my post, you can not? Maybe no grammar you took as buttboy in juvy, you did.

I can read. But when you reply in literally the most vague way possible it's hard to understand.

The judge is going to read it and laugh.

Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff is wasting courts time and resources, this should be dismissed.
Pam proves him correct by filling bunch of frivolous shotgun pleadings.

You think so? Have you personally called the judge and asked him off the record?

Anyone with even a bit of understanding of law knows your newest complaint is bullshit.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I attached the mentioned document, updated the CourtListener link and posted the entire doc
@Viridian you might be interested in this.

Spoiler: Fifth amended complaint

View attachment 1926598View attachment 1926600View attachment 1926601View attachment 1926602View attachment 1926603View attachment 1926605

Legal analysis:
Once again, this is a shotgun pleading (forbidden under WEILAND v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, and subject to dismissal under BUSH et al. v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON et al.).

Like always, it is conclusory and without any provided proof, which is subject to dismissal, and need not be considered. under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
The rest of her citations have been covered here and here, and here
Also, none of us admitted of having any influence over the judges and even if we had, it would not be permissible as evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).


We have not committed any of those, your cited cases were done so poorly, and free speech is superior than federal crimes. See United States v Alvarez.

It literally does not.

I sincerely doubt it since you had yet to present any.


We have no done anything illegal here, and yes, we cannot delete this thread.


Proof, please, because even FBI admits that was Facebook.

5. But three of them are word for word copies of her last complaints.

I can read. But when you reply in literally the most vague way possible it's hard to understand.

Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff is wasting courts time and resources, this should be dismissed.
Pam proves him wrong by filling bunch of frivolous shotgun pleadings.

Anyone with even a bit of understanding of law knows your newest complaint is bullshit.

You are off your rocker, tard.

"We have not committed any of those, your cited cases were done so poorly, and free speech is superior than federal crimes."

So kiwifarms didn't have the thread where the January 6 mob event occurred? And this thread doesn't exist huh?

Harassment, gang/mob activity, harrassing emails, inflamed social media messages, social media threads rife with harassment, and texts with threats aren't protected speech.

They are not. I'm sorry to say this to you, but they are not.

For instance, photoshopped pictures of me with Harvey Weinstein is a false statement if fact that this thread is allowing to be perpetuated.


Also, using social media, emails, texts, and other forms of communication to continually serve death threats kidnaping threats unwanted sexual advances are true threats of violence that the same select people keep sending through this venue of social media communication.


This account making this statement about needing drugs us an example of false statement of fact that is unprotected speech.
@Salade Nicoise

"Someone needs to come and tard wrangle Pam back to her own thread. The irony of a literal mentally disabled schizoposter (who desperately needs some of those meds that Bam stopped taking} coming in and having any opinion on drug use, it's just too much."

This type of unprotected speech is rampant on this site and is grounds to shut it and this duckface account down.

 

[Salade Nicoise]

This account making this statement about needing drugs us an example of false statement of fact that is unprotected speech.
@Salade Nicoise

"Someone needs to come and tard wrangle Pam back to her own thread. The irony of a literal mentally disabled schizoposter (who desperately needs some of those meds that Bam stopped taking} coming in and having any opinion on drug use, it's just too much."

This type of unprotected speech is rampant on this site and is grounds to shut it and this duckface account down.

Never change, Pam. Remember Papa Tony's words: if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

You are off your rocker, tard.

Keep projecting.

"We have not committed any of those, your cited cases were done so poorly, and free speech is superior than federal crimes."

I stand by my words.

So kiwifarms didn't have the thread where the January 6 mob event occurred?

It probably had a discussion thread as the event was going on. That, however is not "aid[ing] in organizing a [riot]", for the riot was already in progress. Nevertheless, it would still have not passed the brandenburg v ohio test, and therefore perfectly legal.

And this thread doesn't exist huh?

This thread contains nothing that is a federal crime or, indeed, any crime at all. I have explained that to you multiple times, and you failed to prove to me, and the judge that there is anything criminal here. If there was, only criminal court can do something about it, which this court is not.

Harassment,

Hasn't occurred here by any legal definition for any state

gang/mob activity,

This is a new one. Regardless hasn't occurred here by any legal definition for any state.

harrassing emails,

Hasn't occurred here by any legal definition for any state

inflamed social media messages,

Not a crime, and is indeed very much protected.

social media threads rife with harassment,

Not sure how that is our problem, but we haven't caused harassment by any legal definition.

and texts with threats

They are very much protected unless they pass a threat test, which they do not. That is all irrelevant of course, because it hasn't occurred here by any legal definition for any state

aren't protected speech.

Everything we do here is protected by law.

They are not. I'm sorry to say this to you, but they are not.

Like in all things, you are wrong. Speech can ignore even federal laws if it so chooses as was proven in United States v Alvarez

For instance, photoshopped pictures of me with Harvey Weinstein is a false statement if fact that this thread is allowing to be perpetuated.

It's a parody, moron, completely protected by both the 1st, and copyright law.

.

Lol, are you really using wikipedia as your legal source?
Also, note the many "may" and "can" in the articles. It doesn't have to lead to any sort of punishment, because it's far more complex than any wiki article could hope to cover.
Note also the word "true" in the second picture. As well as the word "intent". As well as the word "exceptions". Those are important.

Also, using social media, emails, texts, and other forms of communication to continually serve death threats kidnaping threats unwanted sexual advances are true threats of violence that the same select people keep sending through this venue of social media communication.

Again, none of this had happened here, and you failed to show so. Regardless, anon posts on an anon site is not usable evidence.

This account making this statement about needing drugs us an example of false statement of fact that is unprotected speech.
@Salade Nicoise

"Someone needs to come and tard wrangle Pam back to her own thread. The irony of a literal mentally disabled schizoposter (who desperately needs some of those meds that Bam stopped taking} coming in and having any opinion on drug use, it's just too much."

This type of unprotected speech is rampant on this site and is grounds to shut it and this duckface account down.

This is a critique of your mental state, and an opinion, both which are very much protected and have been for around 230 years.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Never change, Pam. Remember Papa Tony's words: if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.

I'm just waiting for you to say something else inflammatory, false, threatening, and sexual, you worthless sack of sour shit you criminal.

This is a critique of your mental state, and an opinion, both which are very much protected and have been for around 230 years.

Oh is that right? What right do you have making false statements of fact against someone you don't know? Especially a person completing a degree in psychology? When has Tony Robbins ever had that right?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I'm just waiting for you to say something else inflammatory, false, threatening, and sexual, you worthless sack of sour shit you criminal.

None of us have said anything to you that is illegal, moron.

What right do you have making false statements of fact against someone you don't know?

I didn't make it, but like I said:

This is a critique of your mental state, and an opinion, both which are very much protected and have been for around 230 years.

This could also be parody, satire, etc, which is protected as well, - Hustler Magazine v Falwell

When has Tony Robbins ever had that right?

I'm not him