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

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date Start date

Which member of the Pamspiracy does Pam secretly want to fuck the most?


  • Total voters
    519
Actually no. And by the way, SCOTUS and caselaw is older than 50 years.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD RETIRE RUDY!
If you had memory longer than a goldfish, you'd be aware, because I told you, that I was talking about hearsay law, and caselaw, which, indeed, are 45 years old.
And you still haven't shown that the supposed threats pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) tests. If they do not pass them, and they do not, then the threats are legal.
I am not Rudy.
Help me petition onion farms to reopen the Fassbender thread for educational purposes.
No.
 
If you had memory longer than a goldfish, you'd be aware, because I told you, that I was talking about hearsay law, and caselaw, which, indeed, are 45 years old.
And you still haven't shown that the supposed threats pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) tests. If they do not pass them, and they do not, then the threats are legal.
I am not Rudy.

No.


I hope you're not Rudy.


I hope not.
 
If you had memory longer than a goldfish, you'd be aware, because I told you, that I was talking about hearsay law, and caselaw, which, indeed, are 45 years old.
And you still haven't shown that the supposed threats pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) tests. If they do not pass them, and they do not, then the threats are legal.
I am not Rudy.

No.


Um I have cases within the last 10 years
I am not.

I see you still can't counter my arguments. Guess I am the victor in this debate then.

I don't think you could handle "losing" any debate occuring in your head.
 
Um I have cases within the last 10 years
There are caselaw that is less than a year old, and some that are over 200 years old. Congrats! You just figured out time indeed can progress.
I don't think you could handle "losing" any debate occuring in your head.
Still no counterargument? But I thought you could prove it was a death threat legally. Seeing as you repeated the same things to the court....doesn't look good, does it?
 
Um I have cases within the last 10 years

This is yet another example of your inability to understand what you read, Pam. Again, specific law, beginning around 50 years ago.

I don't think you could handle "losing" any debate occuring in your head.

As usual, Pam, your commentary is much more applicable to you than to anyone else.

There are caselaw that is less than a year old, and some that are over 200 years old. Congrats! You just figured out time indeed can progress.

It's worse than that. Pam doesn't actually know what you're talking about. She's just saying words to try and sound like she does.

Still no counterargument? But I thought you could prove it was a death threat legally. Seeing as you repeated the same things to the court....doesn't look good, does it?

If Pam processed what you were saying here and what it means for her case she'd have an even worse meltdown, so she'll refuse to acknowledge it while growing ever more angry until she has a fume out and memory holes the entire experience.
 
There are caselaw that is less than a year old, and some that are over 200 years old. Congrats! You just figured out time indeed can progress.

Still no counterargument? But I thought you could prove it was a death threat legally. Seeing as you repeated the same things to the court....doesn't look good, does it?

I'm going to bed. You can argue with your other personalities.
 
This is yet another example of your inability to understand what you read, Pam. Again, specific law, beginning around 50 years ago.
I genuinely don't understand how this is that confusing to understand.
It's worse than that. Pam doesn't actually know what you're talking about. She's just saying words to try and sound like she does.
How did she survive up to this point? Her brain seems to be barely working. Or does she simply not understand English?
If Pam processed what you were saying here and what it means for her case she'd have an even worse meltdown, so she'll refuse to acknowledge it while growing ever more angry until she has a fume out and memory holes the entire experience.
What's funny is that the judge completely ignored all her allegations about threats in his recommendation to dismiss. That makes me think that the Judge knows just how irrelevant, and frivolous those claims are, and just chooses to not waste his time.
I'm going to bed. You can argue with your other personalities.
The only person here which this applies to is you, Pam.
 
I genuinely don't understand how this is that confusing to understand.

How did she survive up to this point? Her brain seems to be barely working. Or does she simply not understand English?

What's funny is that the judge completely ignored all her allegations about threats in his recommendation to dismiss. That makes me think that the Judge knows just how irrelevant, and frivolous those claims are, and just chooses to not waste his time.

The only person here which this applies to is you, Pam.

Are you still at Harvard, Alan, or did they boot you for your ties to Epstein?

I think you descend to insults when you've lost.
 
Are you still at Harvard, Alan, or did they boot you for your ties to Epstein?
1. I'm supposed to be Rudy, or Tony, not Alan.
2. I am neither of the three.
3. I never had any ties with Epstein.
4. I never went to Harvard.
I think you descend to insults when you've lost.
I insult you all the time.
And, no, I am clearly winning. You failed to win a single counterargument, and you failed to provide any evidence that I am wrong (and I have provided plenty that you are).
 
1. I'm supposed to be Rudy, or Tony, not Alan.
2. I am neither of the three.
3. I never had any ties with Epstein.
4. I never went to Harvard.

I insult you all the time.
And, no, I am clearly winning. You failed to win a single counterargument, and you failed to provide any evidence that I am wrong (and I have provided plenty that you are).

Well. You do now since your arguing cases that involve them.

"(and I have provided plenty that you are)." Cases aren't evidence, they are legal precedents and previous rulings.
 
Well. You do now since your arguing cases that involve them.

"(and I have provided plenty that you are)." Cases aren't evidence, they are legal precedents and previous rulings.
No one needs to know anything about law to argue with you Pam. Your case is a joke.

You have zero evidence. You have a collection of random screenshots. That stuff doesn't prove anything.
 
No one needs to know anything about law to argue with you Pam. Your case is a joke.

You have zero evidence. You have a collection of random screenshots. That stuff doesn't prove anything.

You call me a joke?

Screenshot_20210206-194850_Chrome.jpg
20210124_115854.jpg
Screenshot_20210121-113654_Gmail.jpg
 
Well. You do now since your arguing cases that involve them.
For fuck sake, reply to the exact thing you are replying.
"(and I have provided plenty that you are)." Cases aren't evidence, they are legal precedents and previous rulings.
If a Federal Case, or a Supreme Court one says that your alleged threats are not, then tough fucking luck, because there's not much you can do to change that.
Same applies to your shotgun pleadings, your concusory statements, etc. All of it is bad, and I cited caselaw to prove it for every single thing.
You have a collection of random screenshots.
I'm not sure she presented them to court, which regardless likely counts as hearsay and is not accepted. Or the other problems with them. There is a suprisingly long and expensive process to get screenshots accepted to court. There needs to be context, you need to hire an expensive specialist to verify that it isn't fake an valid, etc.
You call me a joke?
Everyone here does.
A meme
Some rando advising you to oppose the left
Hearsay full of conclusory statements from an unverifiable source.

Whatever these were meant to prove, they failed.
 
For fuck sake, reply to the exact thing you are replying.

If a Federal Case, or a Supreme Court one says that your alleged threats are not, then tough fucking luck, because there's not much you can do to change that.
Same applies to your shotgun pleadings, your concusory statements, etc. All of it is bad, and I cited caselaw to prove it for every single thing.

I'm not sure she presented them to court, which regardless likely counts as hearsay and is not accepted. Or the other problems with them. There is a suprisingly long and expensive process to get screenshots accepted to court. There needs to be context, you need to hire an expensive specialist to verify that it isn't fake an valid, etc.

Everyone here does.

A meme

Some rando advising you to oppose the left

Hearsay full of conclusory statements from an unverifiable source.

Whatever these were meant to prove, they failed.

Blah blah blah. You're a retard realizing you backed a big group of retard. Your levels of autism is off the charts.
My guess is, you are on this site all day every day.
 
I called your paper a joke. I called you a clown for sperging out thinking this retard shit is an epic slam dunk.

Thats a screenshot of me saying you're MATI. Then you post pictures of an email from a malaysian crazy person who is big mad that I created a thread on him. You circled "red-brown coalition" why is that?

Blah blah blah. You're a retard realizing you backed a big group of retard. Your levels of autism is off the charts.
My guess is, you are on this site all day every day.
Stay mad Pam. The more you chimp out like this the more people will laugh. Honk honk.
 
I called your paper a joke. I called you a clown for sperging out thinking this retard shit is an epic slam dunk.

Thats a screenshot of me saying you're MATI. Then you post pictures of an email from a malaysian crazy person who is big mad that I created a thread on him. You circled "red-brown coalition" why is that?


Stay mad Pam. The more you chimp out like this the more people will laugh. Honk honk.

Mad? Lmao

You're an idiot. You're pretending to be the Malaysian crazy person. I think you need a vacation cause stress or something is degrading your intelligence.

I cited caselaw

So did I... TO THE COURT.
 
Mad? Lmao

You're an idiot. You're pretending to be the Malaysian crazy person. I think you need a vacation cause stress or something is degrading your intelligence.
I'm not pretending to be Bryan. I thought he was your friend?

Thanks for the concern Pam but I'm really relaxed. I don't need a vacation.

So did I... TO THE COURT.
No you didn't. Everything you submit to the courts is going to be laughed at and tossed out. Your "citations" just like your screenshots from "is my meds my maker" Bryan, pure butthurt.
 
Blah blah blah. You're a retard realizing you backed a big group of retard. Your levels of autism is off the charts.
Still can't prove I'm wrong, huh? If you can't convince me, you won't be able to convince the judge either.
My guess is, you are on this site all day every day.
Says the person who always stays up till 3am on Kiwifarms.
So did I... TO THE COURT.
Four criminal cases that both have nothing to do with your allegations, and that I have proven time and time again, don't apply to us. If I see this, so does the judge.
 
I'm not pretending to be Bryan. I thought he was your friend?

Thanks for the concern Pam but I'm really relaxed. I don't need a vacation.


No you didn't. Everything you submit to the courts is going to be laughed at and tossed out. Your "citations" just like your screenshots from "is my meds my maker" Bryan, pure butthurt.

Is that what the voices of stupidity tell you in your head, Tony?

If they're laughed at, It's because you and these others have descended so deep into your mental retardation that I fear you can't live by yourselves. That's what's sad and humorous.

Four criminal cases (that don't apply to a civil suit), that both have nothing to do with your allegations, and that I have proven time and time again, don't apply to us. If I see this, so does the judge.

Is Harvey Weinstein a convicted criminal, asking for a friend?
 
Back