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
You need to check yourself.

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

"A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.

"The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement," said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. "APA stands behind this rule."
 

Gonna stop you right here, Pam. We are not conducting a proper psychiatric evaluation. We are not, in fact, conducting any sort of evaluation.

Even if one of us happened to be a psychiatric professional, given we are not performing an evaluation, nor speaking in the capacity of a psychiatric professional doing an evaluation, all of this is completely and utterly irrelevant.
 
Gonna stop you right here, Pam. We are not conducting a proper psychiatric evaluation. We are not, in fact, conducting any sort of evaluation.

Even if one of us happened to be a psychiatric professional, given we are not performing an evaluation, nor speaking in the capacity of a psychiatric professional doing an evaluation, all of this is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Gonna stop you right there, this kills your argument.
 
Gonna stop you right there, this kills your argument.

Not in the slightest. My argument, specifically, is that it is plainly obvious even to the most untrained observer that you are mentally ill with delusions of persecution related to various well known figures, believing them to have conspired in order to contact you for various, mostly sexual reasons.

Further, it is my argument that anyone seeing you would have a reasonable, good faith reason to come to this conclusion and state it with reasonable confidence of being true, even though it would simply be their informed opinion rather than an expert evaluation.

Additionally, I argue that IF a psychiatrist were to give you a proper evaluation, they would most likely agree with the broad strokes of my lay assessment.

My argument is perfectly fine and dandy.
 
Not in the slightest. My argument, specifically, is that it is plainly obvious even to the most untrained observer that you are mentally ill with delusions of persecution related to various well known figures, believing them to have conspired in order to contact you for various, mostly sexual reasons.

The accusations came when each person gave identification by name and face identifiers. Neither party has ceased harassment nor offered any varied explanations as to why this harassment has occurred now their level of involvement. This thread was created to harrass an accuser.
 
The accusations came when each person gave identification by name and face identifiers.

This never happened. Using a picture of someone and mentioning a person is not giving identification.

Neither party has ceased harassment nor offered any varied explanations as to why this harassment has occurred now their level of involvement. This thread was created to harrass an accuser.

Neither party has begun harassment. This thread was created to mock a delusional idiot with delusions of grandeur.

Also, none of that affects my argument, still.
 
This never happened. Using a picture of someone and mentioning a person is not giving identification.



Neither party has begun harassment. This thread was created to mock a delusional idiot with delusions of grandeur.

Also, none of that affects my argument, still.

You're spinning your tires.
 
You need to check yourself.

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

"A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.

"The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement," said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. "APA stands behind this rule."
With all due respect to "psychiatry.org", its wishes has no effect on law.


Also, I see you ignored my quite thorough debunking of your claims via Supreme Court cases. You might also find it interesting, that the Supreme Court has declared that Internet (Hey! We are on it!) should have the highest protections possible from the gov "He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30"
-Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

You're spinning your tires.
And you are as incoherent as always
 
With all due respect to "psychiatry.org", its wishes has no effect on law.


Also, I see you ignored my quite thorough debunking of your claims via Supreme Court cases. You might also find it interesting, that the Supreme Court has declared that Internet (Hey! We are on it!) should have the highest protections possible from the gov "He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30"
-Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)


And you are as incoherent as always

American Psychiatric Association? APA?

You're thumbing your nose at APA.org, the one writing form you say your excellent at utilizing?

"He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30"

All accept for unprotected speech including false statements of fact and threats of violence.
 
American Psychiatric Association? APA?

You're thumbing your nose at APA.org, the one writing form you say your excellent at utilizing?

No, he's saying it's not law. Which it isn't. An ethical guideline is not the same as a law.

"He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30"

All accept for unprotected speech including false statements of fact and threats of violence.

Except. The word you were looking for was except. Also we are not making false statements and none of the threats here are remotely credible.
 
American Psychiatric Association? APA?

You're thumbing your nose at APA.org, the one writing form you say your excellent at utilizing?
APA does not make laws, does not influence them, and cannot make useful judgments in the same vain as the courts can. So, yes, I don't care what they say.
Law is still law, no matter how much APA whines about it.
All accept for unprotected speech including false statements of fact and threats of violence.
That was not in the Supreme Court case.
As for the other's I gave you direct citations that prove you wrong. I will repeat them again.
"Even when considering some instances of defamation or fraud, the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood."
"do not establish a principle that all proscriptions of false statements are exempt from rigorous First Amendment scrutiny."
"False factual statements serve useful human objectives in many contexts."
"Moreover, the threat of criminal prosecution for making a false statement can inhibit the speaker from making true statements, thereby “chilling” a kind of speech that lies at the First Amendment’s heart."
- UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ
"For when 'it is impossible to know, in view of the general verdict returned' whether the jury imposed liability on a permissible or an impermissible ground 'the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded."
"Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period."
"Because the threat or actual imposition of pecuniary liability for alleged defamation may impair the unfettered exercise of these First Amendment freedoms, the Constitution imposes stringent limitations upon the permissible scope of such liability."
"It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word 'blackmail' in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: it was Bresler's public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler's negotiating position extremely unreasonable. Indeed, the record is completely devoid of evidence that anyone in the city of Greenbelt or anywhere else thought Bresler had been charged with a crime."
- Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler

"Next, statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected" (opinion for example)
"thus assuring that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of this Nation."
"Under that analysis, four factors are considered to ascertain whether, under the "totality of circumstances," a statement is fact or opinion. These factors are: (1) "the specific language used"; (2) "whether the statement is verifiable"; (3) "the general context of the statement"; and (4) "the broader context in which the statement appeared."[...] With respect to the third factor, the general context, the court explained that "the large caption TD Says' . . . would indicate to even the most gullible reader that the article was, in fact, opinion." Id. at 252, 496 N.E.2d at 707. As for the fourth factor, the "broader context," the court reasoned that, because the article appeared on a sports page -- "a traditional haven for cajoling, invective, and hyperbole" -- the article would probably be construed as opinion" "

"However, due to concerns that unduly burdensome defamation laws could stifle valuable public debate, the privilege of "fair comment" was incorporated into the common law as an affirmative defense to an action for defamation."
"The principle of "fair comment" afford[ed] legal immunity for the honest expression of opinion on matters of legitimate public interest when based upon a true or privileged statement of fact."
"use of the word "traitor" in literary definition of a union "scab" not basis for a defamation action under federal labor law, since used "in a loose, figurative sense" and was "merely rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative expression of the contempt felt by union members""
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990)

"Freedoms of expression require "breathing space,'"
-
Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986)

"That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive,""
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

" Failure to investigate does not, in itself, establish bad faith."
" The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith."
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 )

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern"
"[T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."
"We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." "The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea"
"But even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves, they are "nevertheless inevitable in free debate,""
"But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here."
- HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL
If you are referring to the comment, and threat or death threat, such threat must "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made [be] so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution" (United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) ). This is simply not the case here
You are a liar, Pam, and not a good one either.
Weinstein has a history of death threats. It backs up previous violent behaviors.
Weistein is not here, and he too would have to pass the "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made [be] so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution" (United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) ). test
 
That would be relevant if Weinstein knew you existed. He does not.

Oh is that right because this hate thread was created specifically due to Weinstein's knowledge of me and my suit and saved communications he sent me so at least since july 2018, he's been aware of my existence. Enough to make this post.....that was deleted because it was a death threat.
Screenshot (198).png
 
Oh is that right because this hate thread was created specifically due to Weinstein's knowledge of me and my suit and saved communications he sent me so at least since july 2018, he's been aware of my existence. Enough to make this post.....that was deleted because it was a death threat.
View attachment 1934487
Nothing about this is true.
Not a death threat under United States v. Kelner, which you would know if you were capable of reading and of thought
 
Oh is that right because this hate thread was created specifically due to Weinstein's knowledge of me and my suit and saved communications he sent me

No, it was created because someone saw you were a goldmine of crazy delusions. Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

so at least since july 2018, he's been aware of my existence. Enough to make this post.....that was deleted because it was a death threat.
View attachment 1934487

It wasn't deleted.

 
Yet another lie by Pam

You are the one lying. As a matter of fact you purjured yourself saying no one comments on my mental health only to comment that the death threat I posted from this very thread us a lie, no bitch, you have lost your damn mind.
And you better be a lawyer saying all this and not a clerk of US district court or a judge presiding over my case from US District court.

And whoever you are , I demand you cease and desist your legal ranting and diatribes in a forum where nons of your wild claims and accusations are protected speech. To continue holds you personally liable. Do not accuse me of lying again.

Holy cow, is this real? Where is this poor, delusional girls family? I am ready for bad ratings because I have nothing of value to add but I couldn't not post because holy shit. I hope someone who knows her helps her because this is sad.

I hope you have a lawyer.
 
Back