- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Yeah like Rudy Tootie has a billion lying around. But maybe this is deterrent lawsuit.
Trainwreck Pamela Swain / DocHoliday1977 / MsPhoenix1969 / Observer1977 / danishlace2003 / Writer_thriller - Victim of grand #MeToo conspiracy, litigious wannabe starfucker, off her meds and online
Yeah like Rudy Tootie has a billion lying around. But maybe this is deterrent lawsuit.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
You need to munch on less popcorn and munch on more medication.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Nah. Not with all the entertainment you all provide.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2021
I drank an entire 18 pack last night. Last I remember I had four left, but when I woke up there were none. I wasn't absent tonight because of a hangover though. I went to the race track. As much fun As I've been having with Pam there are much more fun things in life than poking at spergs. I'm not even going to look back over my posts to see what I did because when I get blackout drunk on the internet I usually do shit that makes sober me cringe.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2017
Guess Pammy's epic chimpout from her lawsuit being dismissed with prejudice has finally run out of steam, and she's become boring again. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Someone tag me when she files more lolsuit shit or anything else of actual interest.
derpherp2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2020
Imagine being so boring you somehow can't get three pages in a day after being front-page lolcow material. And half of it is you.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Deterrent to his speech? As in seeking to stifle his speech? Congrats, Pam, you just realised one of the reasons the suit is frivalous.
It's also unlikely to succeed both because they are (to the best of my knowledge) unable to prove damages, and because they cannot prove Actual Malice, no matter how hard they reeee.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2020
I just read 100 pages of this fucking thread. I don't know why I did it. I've gained nothing from this. I feel nothing but genuine regrets. But I just. Couldn't. Stop. Watching. What the fuck was that. Is this a real person ? It looks like a broken half-assed chatbot written by a dying turbo sped with a body full of grease and a brain full of air. Also @Cup Noodle you're one absolute mad fuck, the last thing I could expect from this shitshow was a digusting episode of flirt between a schizo walrus and the Chad version of Jacob Sockness. Semper Fucking Fi.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Trying to use the ole freedom of speech to undermine an uncontested election? That freedom of speech sure can validate quite a few crimes, can't it?
And a multi account self ingratiating domestic abuser apologetic with drug and alcohol issues. What social media site.
Imagine being Tony Robbins and Donald Trump jr? I think I'm good.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2020
I'm going to be true and honest with you. This is my one and only account to act like a domestic abuser apologetic with drug and alcohol issues on this social media site, ma'am.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Or when Harvey Weinstein finally dies.
No wait. When all mentioned std posters on here finally succumb to their ailments which can't be long.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
He has the right, granted by the constitution, to talk about the election, and criticize governmental official's/govermental contractor's role in it. You always have had that right, and you still do. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 ) makes the lawsuit pretty much unwinable for Dominion.
That's ignoring the fact that it was contested. That can be easily proven by the objection to the certification by both Senators and Congressmen, as well by the endless lawsuits. Or the capitol incident.
Saying an election was not fair or rigged is not a crime. If it was, the entirety of the democratic party would have had to been jailed back in 2016.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
Don't tell me, I'm not a judge. But I think it's personal injury to brand. If I were a judge, I'd reduce the damages but rule in favor cause the reverse is true too. Say Trump by some miracle gets re elected. Then the opposition party can dissuade the validity of the election with threats, defamation, intimidation, insinuations, and "speech". They could organize a better insurrection that Trump can't defeat..
Tu comprende?
I dont know about you. But if I were a judge and I found out th as t "Stop the steal" started before the November 2020 election, the Trump defense would lose greatly.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
If you were a judge you would've been educated for more than seven years.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
I see you completely avoided the point for a rhetorical introduction to comment on.
Weird.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
Crazy Ass Pam needs to go back to being a hair model.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2020
Lol she was never a hair model, have you seen the state of that mop? Even in her old pics. That's just another one of her fantasies.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
With hair that shitty, any place she would advertise for would go chapter 11 in an hour.
Whale Spotter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
Anti Semitic Pam is funniest Pam.
Congrats @Deadpool for landing a role in Pam's schizo stalker fantasy
Because you think they are random celebrities that are stalking you (which never happened in the first place).
You are very confused, you are the sideshow freak and we are the spectators.
What crimes? Saying that a shady election was shady is not a crime.
That sounds like the mentality of someone who should have been born under a regime.
Good thing you are not a judge because this sounds downright retarded, which suits your usual train of thoughts.
Pam, as soon as they saw you were citing a Yahoo article, they realized you had no point so their response was appropriate.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Truth is an absolute defense (for example see Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64).
As is a Good Faith believe in what you have said (see my two previous citations). Regardless, it doesn't matter what your or the judge think about injury to the brand, if said injury cannot be proved.
No district court has the authority to overrule 57 years of Supreme Court rulings in issues such as this.
It happened in 2016. With quite a bit more damages than in this election.
Rudy did not threaten anyone, and neither did Trump.
Not as per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 ).
Did not happen, and arguably this is what Dominion is doing with it's threats of lawsuits to anyone that does not believe in their fairness. This might violate rules like Rule 11, and is indeed not allowed under SCOTUS cases like Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)
I can straight up tell a group of people to come with me to hang niggers and gas jews, and I am still in no way at fault. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) where pretty much the exact thing happened. Also see Hess v. Indiana(1973), as well as United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976).
The fact that you do not know law, does not make other people liable, or even criminals, no matter how much you might think that to be fair.
Learn law, and you will learn that your argument was meritless and without a shred of foundation in law.
If that were to happen, the appeals court would tear you a new asshole, and would reverse your judgment.
Weeks before the election it was already in doubt, with many courts going against clear and specific wishes of the legislative body, on flimsy reasoning, hoping to get more votes. Interestingly, this was pointed out by Supreme Court Judges Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch.
Also, why does your go to source for news is an email company?
Also, you might find this article interesting.