- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
You, Harvey, Tony, and others use this thread and site to make personal attacks and threats to people.
You've said them to your other targets. And judges.
Trainwreck Pamela Swain / DocHoliday1977 / MsPhoenix1969 / Observer1977 / danishlace2003 / Writer_thriller - Victim of grand #MeToo conspiracy, litigious wannabe starfucker, off her meds and online
You, Harvey, Tony, and others use this thread and site to make personal attacks and threats to people.
You've said them to your other targets. And judges.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2018
Pretty dang libellous to call me a criminal if you ask me... Pretty dang libellous indeed.
It's ok Pam, I'll forgive you this time. Maybe we can both take a moment and stare into Gerard's dreamy eyes and reminisce about the Lithium dayz
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
What about this threat to someone else?
No
Pretty dang libellous to call me a criminal if you ask me... Pretty dang libellous indeed.
It's ok Pam, I'll forgive you this time. Maybe we can both take a moment and stare into Gerard's dreamy eyes and reminisce about the Lithium dayz
View attachment 1926724
No
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
View attachment 1926706
Not a threat under law
View attachment 1926707
Reposting public information, especially one that the owner of that information had made public, is not a crime, and was never held as such.
View attachment 1926709
Hearsay is not acceptable evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence, and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). St Amant v Thompson makes this unusable in "good faith". However, this is still protected under Hustler Magazine v Falwell, WATTS v. UNITED STATES(1969), etc.
View attachment 1926714
Nothing in here is a crime, and regardless hearsay is not acceptable evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence, and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). St Amant v Thompson makes this unusable in "good faith". However, this is still protected under Hustler Magazine v Falwell, WATTS v. UNITED STATES(1969), etc.
You'd understand it if you were capable of reading.
Not a threat under law
View attachment 1926707
Reposting public information, especially one that the owner of that information had made public, is not a crime, and was never held as such.
View attachment 1926709
Hearsay is not acceptable evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence, and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). St Amant v Thompson makes this unusable in "good faith". However, this is still protected under Hustler Magazine v Falwell, WATTS v. UNITED STATES(1969), etc.
View attachment 1926714
Nothing in here is a crime, and regardless hearsay is not acceptable evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence, and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). St Amant v Thompson makes this unusable in "good faith". However, this is still protected under Hustler Magazine v Falwell, WATTS v. UNITED STATES(1969), etc.
They aren't here.
Literally no, and you cannot prove it.
Nope.
What does that have to do with anything? This is a person describing what happened when some moron attacked an ex-Epstein judge shortly after Maxwell was arrested. Commentating, and sharing ideas, is protected..
That's not a threat. That's some moron thinking that (from what I see of the pic) that everyone on KF is an assassin (which he is free to think, even if it is retarded, and no reasonable person would believe it).What about this threat to someone else?
You'd understand it if you were capable of reading.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2017
Three "amended complaints" filed within the span of five days! Piggy couldn't prove Based Judge Ray more right that her shotgun pleadings are 100% without merit if she was deliberately trying! 
Let's break down this crazy tard's latest nonsense some. As @Useful_Mistake already pointed out, 3 pages of this filing are simply a repeat of her last "amended complaint", but Piggy did make one interesting edit I noticed. An edit in direct response to an earlier post of mine:
Now her incoherent scrawlings reads:
1) Grammar fail.
2) Comma fail.
3) Mixed tenses in a single sentence.
4) Bwahahaha Piggy couldn't even keep a job for more than a month!A job she probably got fired from, since she always cries about how the imaginary international celebrity conspiracy she blames for all her own stupidity gets her fired from jobs.
A pity she made that one edit to her verbal diarrhea masquerading as a legal filing, but she didn't fix all the many spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors I pointed out in that post. It wouldn't make her claims any more valid, but it would make her look less retarded.
Based Judge Ray has explained to her repeatedly in both her last lolsuits that she can't demand criminal charges be filed and prosecuted against defendants in a civil lawsuit. The law won't let her do that, and the district court doesn't have the power to do what she's asking them to do. Yet she keeps trying anyways. Her boneheaded stupidity in this regard is on the level of Russell Greer. It's almost impressive, but it's mostly just hilarious.
Comma fail.
Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman! 5: The Empire Strikes Back
1) Grammar fail.
2) Capitalization fail.
Periods go inside the quotation marks, Pamela "I'm a professional author!" Swain.
1) Multiple punctuation fails.
2) Posting on a public forum is not illegal, Piggy.
3) You contradicted your claim with your own choice of wording. I think you meant "with impunity," Pamela "I'm a professional author!" Swain.
4) Capitalization fail.
1) Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman! 6: The Ghost Dimension
2) It's not even a complete run-on sentence!
3) That is 100% not how you cite case law in a legal filing.
1) Based Judge Ray already explained to her that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act means Null doesn't have to do either jack or shit about this thread.
2) That is some messed up sentence construction from Pamela "I'm a professional author!" Swain.
1) Multiple grammar fails.
2) Multiple vocabulary faisl.
3) Multiple punctuation fails.
4) Wrong tense; the Trump administration is over, Piggy. You want to use past tense verbs here.
5) Anything Trump, his son, and/or his administration did or did not do in relation to the attempted insurrection on January 6, 2021 is completely irrelevant to Spamela's crazy retard lawsuit about her creepy rape fantasies about Harvey Weinstein.
Fuck it, I can't break down all the 5th grade level writing mistakes she's making anymore. I'll just sum it up with "Pammy no use words teh gud" and leave it at that. Also, she's still not properly citing case law.
1) Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman! 7: Mission to Moscow
2) Do you want to use the Oxford comma or not, Piggy? Pick one or the other already and stick to it.
Hahahahaha no judge is going to create new legal precedents on your behalf. You have no case. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Based Judge Ray has told you this multiple times already. You're not a victim here. You're just a crazy retard femcel obsessed with being raped by Harvey Weinstein.
Let's break down this crazy tard's latest nonsense some. As @Useful_Mistake already pointed out, 3 pages of this filing are simply a repeat of her last "amended complaint", but Piggy did make one interesting edit I noticed. An edit in direct response to an earlier post of mine:
Now her incoherent scrawlings reads:
1) Grammar fail.
2) Comma fail.
3) Mixed tenses in a single sentence.
4) Bwahahaha Piggy couldn't even keep a job for more than a month!
A job she probably got fired from, since she always cries about how the imaginary international celebrity conspiracy she blames for all her own stupidity gets her fired from jobs.Even if she didn't get fired for cause from this job though, the fact her employment only lasted one month (because she's unemployable due to being a crazy retard) is likely why she was actually denied unemployment benefits:
TL;DR - You can't sit on your ass all year, get a job for a single month, then expect to cash in on unemployment benefits while you sit on your ass again.
TL;DR - You can't sit on your ass all year, get a job for a single month, then expect to cash in on unemployment benefits while you sit on your ass again.
A pity she made that one edit to her verbal diarrhea masquerading as a legal filing, but she didn't fix all the many spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors I pointed out in that post. It wouldn't make her claims any more valid, but it would make her look less retarded.
Based Judge Ray has explained to her repeatedly in both her last lolsuits that she can't demand criminal charges be filed and prosecuted against defendants in a civil lawsuit. The law won't let her do that, and the district court doesn't have the power to do what she's asking them to do. Yet she keeps trying anyways. Her boneheaded stupidity in this regard is on the level of Russell Greer. It's almost impressive, but it's mostly just hilarious.
Comma fail.
Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman! 5: The Empire Strikes Back
1) Grammar fail.
2) Capitalization fail.
Periods go inside the quotation marks, Pamela "I'm a professional author!" Swain.
1) Multiple punctuation fails.
2) Posting on a public forum is not illegal, Piggy.
3) You contradicted your claim with your own choice of wording. I think you meant "with impunity," Pamela "I'm a professional author!" Swain.
4) Capitalization fail.
1) Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman! 6: The Ghost Dimension
2) It's not even a complete run-on sentence!
3) That is 100% not how you cite case law in a legal filing.
1) Based Judge Ray already explained to her that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act means Null doesn't have to do either jack or shit about this thread.
2) That is some messed up sentence construction from Pamela "I'm a professional author!" Swain.
1) Multiple grammar fails.
2) Multiple vocabulary faisl.
3) Multiple punctuation fails.
4) Wrong tense; the Trump administration is over, Piggy. You want to use past tense verbs here.
5) Anything Trump, his son, and/or his administration did or did not do in relation to the attempted insurrection on January 6, 2021 is completely irrelevant to Spamela's crazy retard lawsuit about her creepy rape fantasies about Harvey Weinstein.
Fuck it, I can't break down all the 5th grade level writing mistakes she's making anymore. I'll just sum it up with "Pammy no use words teh gud" and leave it at that. Also, she's still not properly citing case law.
1) Holy Run-on Sentence, Batman! 7: Mission to Moscow
2) Do you want to use the Oxford comma or not, Piggy? Pick one or the other already and stick to it.
Hahahahaha no judge is going to create new legal precedents on your behalf. You have no case. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Based Judge Ray has told you this multiple times already. You're not a victim here. You're just a crazy retard femcel obsessed with being raped by Harvey Weinstein.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Hearsay is not acceptable evidence under Rule 802 of Federal rules of Evidence, and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). St Amant v Thompson makes this unusable in "good faith".
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Yeah, like I said before, this is still hearsay and therefore unusable in courts. That's without addressing the fact that no reasonable person would believe this sms.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Hm. Sorry you feel that way.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
It's simply the law. It's been that way for around 50 years.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
The laws have been around for only 50 years?
Not 100?
Not 200?
Not 232 years?
The law only existed in your lifetime?
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2017
Why don't you "resarrrrch" it and all my stuff online....and post it.
So, did a search around the farms.... literally no other hits, save a quote of Pam's. I have no clue what the hell she's trying to quote or reference here but it is apparently not on the farms.
You are just as bad at Yoda's grammar as you are regular English Grammar, Pam.
No. The farms does not. The thread about the attack on the capitol was a commentary thread, a reaction, not planning.
None of that is happening here.
Satire, Pam. Especially given the blatant shittiness of the edit.
None of that is happening on the farms, Pam.
No, that is absolutely protected speech.
That type of speech is still protected, Pam. Even something that is all of them can be protected speech.
They are not false, we are making them in good faith belief that they are correct, we base that on the aggregated evidence, your degree has zero bearing on the legality of making these comments, Tony Robbins isn't here and we have always had that right.
No one has contacted the judge on your case, Pam.
She said, responding with a non sequitur to deflect from how ass blasted she was.
The particular law he is discussing wouldn't exist before the technology it regulates, Pam. He is not discussing "The Law" as a monolithic block, but the specific law covering hearsay which was reformulated when plenty of new communication methods were popularized.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Any reasonably intelligent person would have understood that I was referring to the law regarding hearsay, which indeed was enacted 45 years ago into the Federal Rule of Evidence.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Wiki is not a good source for law. And again, note also the word "true". As well as the word "intent". As well as the word "exceptions". Those are important.
Link to actual post, rather than what looks to be a wordpad doc. Nevertheless that does not pass Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) test, nor the test under United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976).
Edit for clarification: That means that the post is completely legal
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Analog Devolved
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2020
No. There is no conspiracy Pam. No one is contacting the judge. You're just prepping yourself for the chimp out after you lose again.
Pam we already know you're an unemployable loser who can't be tard wrangled. Take your meds.
You hate free speech Pam. You're guilty of all those things and more. You constantly rant at celebrities.
Pure rubbish. More of the same laughable screenshots.
Yeah you will.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
I see you have no counter arguments to actual SCOTUS and Federal Caselaw. I guess I was expecting much given that your source of information about law is Wikipedia
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Actually no. And by the way, SCOTUS and caselaw is older than 50 years.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD RETIRE RUDY!
Help me petition onion farms to reopen the Fassbender thread for educational purposes.