Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

How will Bob react to seeing the Mario film?


  • Total voters
    1,451
Status
Not open for further replies.
HOLY SHIT WE'RE GETTING THE GANG BACK TOGETHER BOIS!!!11
FUCKING ADAM BALDWIN LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
11-13-21 bad blood pt1.PNG


11-13-21 bad blood pt2.PNG

Notice that Arkle never, nor has ever, tried to explain what Double Jeopardy, capitalized because he's clearly talking about the movie and has been studying his Bobisms very, very closely, is or how it works. A smaller Bob knob slobber tries to explain it in Adam's feed
1636821313773.png

One could argue that, yes. One could also snip their dick off and try to convince every one they're a woman. Both are completely insane and wrong. Kyle has no connection to any group. He got more or less tricked into an impromtu photo op by, I believe, Lin Wood (conservative Michael Avenatti). Does the fact that Bob has shopped pictures of him in SS uniforms and Nazi rallies make him fascist? No, of course not. It's his words and beliefs that make him a fascist.

11-13-21 bad blood pt3.PNG


OK....first off saying something completely retarded publicly on twitter, people finding it, taking issues with it, and calling you retarded is not, nor has it ever been targeted harassment you unscrupulous asshole. The way he keeps using it makes me now think of Melinda Scott and her cum guzzling bf continually saying color of law in every legal document and every post. It's Bippity Boppity Boo, a magic word that will solve all their ills.

Second, Bob pinned the screen cap of when Aimee Therese blocked him and continued to dunk tweet on her through screen caps so don't try to flex on Adam for getting around a block big boy

Thirdly, I have NEVER seen Bob post any actual threats on his life. Ever. Sucks to be him with his Y chromosome because I don't have to just listen and believe. The only thing I have ever seen him post as something that could be considered some sort of threat were things from Spetsnaz and even those were schizo ramblings saying that John was gonna get him fired. For any new Bobologists, John Spetsnaz is an honest to God A-log for Bob. He has an account here on the farms, @John Spetsnaz, and I do not recommend that you talk to him in any way. He is legit crazy and believes that Bob wants him, personally, dead. He has been hounding Bob for years in a very Bob fashion. Long story short, too late, Bob has never provided any credible threats to his person. He does credit him finally getting a check mark with the death threats he was getting because checkmarks offer superior protection from credible death threats. That's how that works
"heh, no you see, plebian, The Escapist didn't pay for my checkmark like every single other entertainment website ever. I got the mark because of credible threats to me and my family because that's how that works, dumbass."
I'm sure it sounded smarter and not at all like made up bull shit in his head.

For a better understanding of why Bob is liar, and a terrible one at that and besides just being Bob, please see this vid from EmpLemon.

Finally, the last tweet DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY ISSUE THAT WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP BY BOB HIMSELF. His witty rejoinder is that Kyle celebrated too early lol. I'm to understand that DJ is a uniquely American thing so let a stupid felon do what Bob refuses to do and help fellow farmers across both ponds by explaining it through a simple Internet search.
1636822123095.png

Kyle is also protected because, assuming he's acquitted which I believe he should be, the state then can't go back and charge him for something like Murder 1 as that would be a higher charge than what he's already being tried for. You cannot charge up but you can charge down.
1636823564683.png

He's already being charged with reckless homicide. I don't think there's anywhere else for the prosecution to go.

The only, and only thing that does not protect Kyle from DJ is if the feds bring charges.
From the section "When Double Jeopardy Does Not Apply"
1636822222745.png

Oh man! I'ma sweating bullets now! Bob's on to something by haranguing the feds to indict! It looks like the only saving grace for Kyle is that
THERE WAS NO FEDERAL LAW THAT WAS BROKEN YOU ABSOLUTE DUMB CUNT
It should not shock me anymore but I am continually flabbergasted by the willful distortion of truths and facts by Lord of Lynn and his faithful keyboard warriors. There is no other way to put it. They want him dead, they want his mother in jail, they want any wealth he has stolen, they want his sisters taken away, and they think it's funny. I have never seen the Sam Hyde meme so disturbingly and clearly acted out before.
1636823865623.png
This is a fight that I do not want and that Bob and his dick snippers and clit bitters are completely unprepared for. Though as I say this I'm realizing that most of them, and in Bob's case even longer, have spent the past 5 years declaring that everyone they don't like is a nazi and, as we've been told these past 5 years, nazi's are not people. To not leave this on a doomposty note, for Bob and his dick snippers and clit bitters to take action it would require them to leave the house and use that totally real .357 revolver they got from grand dad. Remember, if you ain't winning on speed you might as well win on power.
He knows as much about guns as he does everything else
bob gun fud.png
...I just now realized that the called semi auto pistol magazines clips. A clip is what you use in a gun that has a built in internal magazine, like a broom stick Mauser or an M1 Garand. He really is the gift that keeps on giving.
 
The fact that your name/icon is a Dead Rising reference only illustrates this point further and I love it.
What can I say, I love the first one and I consider Off The Record to be...well, not great, but fine. 2 and 3 didn't grab me and 4 can go die in a ditch.

Robert still doesn't understand the US legal system
Ashely Judd classic?
 
What can I say, I love the first one and I consider Off The Record to be...well, not great, but fine. 2 and 3 didn't grab me and 4 can go die in a ditch.


Ashely Judd classic?
Double Jeopardy, of course. This has been his battle cry for the last two days.

Also, @Ralph Barnhardt , that article is pretty good but I'm pretty sure it's mistaken on the lesser offense thing.
 
What can I say, I love the first one and I consider Off The Record to be...well, not great, but fine. 2 and 3 didn't grab me and 4 can go die in a ditch.


Ashely Judd classic?
There was actually a Made-for-TV "Double Jeopardy" back in 1992, AND a movie in 1955. I'm surprised Bob didn't bring either of those up, though with the 1955 movie I could understand because Wikipedia doesn't list the plot of that particular version. :P

However, Bob is wrong about how Double Jeopardy (as it was utilized in the 1999 movie) might apply to the Rittenhouse case: It doesn't. Maybe he's thinking of the actual classic 1992 TV movie starring Bruce Boxleitner, which is very different from the 1999 Ashley Judd movie and would more closely resemble what Double Jeopardy actually is IRL, and is definitely more relevant. The Ashley Judd version runs off the false premise that if you're convicted of murder, you get a "freebie" as in, if the person you "killed" didn't actually die, you can go kill them and not be prosecuted.


For those who don't know, the 1992 film's plot is someone is tried for murder and acquitted. Then they found out she really was guilty of murder (it wasn't self-defence as she originally claimed). I remember seeing this movie. I don't know why Bob either didn't, or forgot about it. I mean, I know Bob is an incompetent movie reviewer, but this takes the goddamn cake. He SHOULD not only be aware of at least one of the two previous Double Jeopardy movies, but should have seen the 1992 version and there's no goddamn excuse for it, let alone clinging to the most recent version when people his age or older would be thinking of the 1992 version.

Bob's so confused over guns, he clearly meant semi-auto/automatic non-revolver pistols and incorrectly used "clips" instead as opposite to revolvers, but that banana brain doesn't even realize that Moon/Half Moon Clips exist....... for motherfucking REVOLVERS. "Hurr durr only pistols have clips". Smoothbrain. And of course, the rest of his take on his 'preferences' in firearms is completely fucking exceptional.

So in short, Bob is in no way a thinker.
 
Last edited:
Robert still doesn't understand the US legal system:
View attachment 2713350View attachment 2713364
Tweet | Archive
Does Bob not know what a lower court is? Even if Rittenhouse could be tried for lesser included offenses (like manslaughter) it would be in the same fucking court. There isn't a separate court for murder, manslaughter, drug offenses, or trespassing. It is all the same fucking court. Most murder trials include lesser charges in jury instructions, and Rittenhouse's trial is going to include several. Whatever is in the jury instructions absolutely cannot be tried again under anything less than extreme circumstances if acquitted (Such as the defendant bribing the jury.)

Also worth noting that Wisconsin doesn't have manslaughter law, but second degree reckless homicide, which is mostly just semantics.

Also he doesn't remember the Ashley Judd film wherein a woman can't be retried for killing her ex-husband because he faked his death and framed her for it already. Which is horribly schlocky and completely untrue (since it would be two separate offenses.) Like the actual interpretation of double jeopardy or Bob's special try again take aren't even remotely close to what happened in that movie.

Edit: Looking at Wisconsin Homicide laws, it would be very difficult to give instructions for first-degree intentional homicide and self-defense without also giving instructions for second degree intentional homicide since the first degree law has provisions for "Mitigating circumstances: Unnecessary defensive force" which is basically self defense but the defendant had an unreasonable belief that force was necessary. So unless Kyle was double parked somewhere, if he is acquitted he won't be in court again for events that night.
 
Last edited:
Double Jeopardy, of course. This has been his battle cry for the last two days.

Also, @Ralph Barnhardt , that article is pretty good but I'm pretty sure it's mistaken on the lesser offense thing.
I think what they mean is that even if new evidence is found you cannot be charged of a higher or equal crime but you can be tried for a lesser. I'm guessing it's something like you were tried for a murder, found innocent, but later new evidence shows that you set fire to the building while killing the person then you can be tried for the arson? I'm clearly not a lawyer so I could be 100% wrong and so can they.


Based on the body shape, I'm gonna go with troon.
You know back in my time we used to ask if that was a dood when a girl looked like this. But, man I am impressed how troons have made pretty convinced that passing isn't possible.

Although now Koby got me unsure. That first picture looks too much like a true and honest girl. But the second has that huge fucking head...
I think she's a woman. She showed up in this thread before and I posted before and after pictures.
Looking at her twitter feed she did yet another before and after pic comparison.
She claims this is from 2013
1636840443264.png

She was kind enough to include a better picture of her throat.
1636840583853.png

You can kinda see the outline of a breast but not like that means much of anything anymore, though maybe it did in 2013.

And this is from 2021
1636840464814.png
It's difficult to tell but to me it looks like she was this kinda small girl who decided to empower her self by destroying any semblance of femininity by going from smol to swol. The fact that we can actually debate over this and not have a clear answer is the real problem. I can safely say that even if she does have two X chromosomes I would not sex.


Can you link me to the details on this particular event? I was away when it happened (apparently) so any help catching up would be appreciated.
@Quixotic Man first discovered it
I didn't know Bob had moved out of the Revere basement.

Anyway his voter registration now lists him as living in Lynn, MA. It was previously listed as Revere.

View attachment 2572260

All mortgage documents for 12 Southside is in the name of Patricia Chipman. Who I can now confirm is Bob's mom after reading her husband Pete's, obituary,

View attachment 2572275

So it looks like Bob might have moved back in with his mom.
We don't know the specifics but I believe we did confirm that the address is that of Mommy Chipman.
OK, so, legit bob's not lying about a "beach" (river beach, anyway) being down the road from his mom's basement.

View attachment 2573460
although, I'd be hard-pressed to see evidence of a basement from this:
What even IS this :lunacy: in the front room?!:
Also note the same (kind of) shitty candelabra in both front windows.
I think what kicked it off was Bob tweeting about being busy with moving things.
 
Robert has twisted himself into amazing knots trying to get out of this double jeopardy thing. Yes, of course, if you're charged in a different court with entirely different charges double jeopardy doesn't apply, nobody is arguing this! They're saying what you said was an instance of double jeopardy, you can't get out of that by saying "what I actually meant was an entirely different situation from what I said!"
The Ashley Judd version runs off the false premise that if you're convicted of murder, you get a "freebie" as in, if the person you "killed" didn't actually die, you can go kill them and not be prosecuted.
I feel like it's incredibly important to emphasize that in "the 1999 Ashley Judd classic" her character is convicted of murder and goes to prison.
 
I think what they mean is that even if new evidence is found you cannot be charged of a higher or equal crime but you can be tried for a lesser. I'm guessing it's something like you were tried for a murder, found innocent, but later new evidence shows that you set fire to the building while killing the person then you can be tried for the arson? I'm clearly not a lawyer so I could be 100% wrong and so can they.

It's been a long time since I practiced, but my recollection -- and what cases I've been reading in my Ahab like obsession to prove this fat fuck is talking out his ass -- is that the state can't bring new charges without new facts. In the situation you describe, if the defendant had already been alleged to have set fire to the building, then they couldn't bring a new case even if they hadn't previously charged arson. There's also a whole body of law about a defendant's course of conduct and whether new cases can be brought or if it was all part of the same act. That's the critical thing -- you can't bring multiple trials stemming from the same act. The biggest exception seems to be conspiracy, which can be alleged separately from the crime itself. There's also jurisdictional issues, but if they can't figure out what federal law Rittenhouse might have broken then they're screwed there as well.

Really, the biggest argument against it is that so far neither Bob nor any of his dimwitted sycophants has mentioned an actual case where this happened. The only one I can even think of that comes close was the debate over whether to charge John Hinckley with murder when James Brady died. But even in that case, there was a new fact -- Brady had died.

I feel like it's incredibly important to emphasize that in "the 1999 Ashley Judd classic" her character is convicted of murder and goes to prison.

Of course. Of course.

It's this sort of thing that makes me realize it's utterly pointless to argue with him anywhere but here.
 
It's difficult to tell but to me it looks like she was this kinda small girl who decided to empower her self by destroying any semblance of femininity by going from smol to swol. The fact that we can actually debate over this and not have a clear answer is the real problem. I can safely say that even if she does have two X chromosomes I would not sex.
Okay thats a woman. I would put money down. Hell I'd put my money where my dick is. We will find out with good ol' science. Someone tell her a Kiwi farm regular is interested, that should work.
 
I don't know if there's been a legal analysis of Double Jeopardy (1999), I've seen them for films with less obvious legal themes, but I'm not sure it's necessarily case of double jeopardy if she had killed the dude and been arrested again and charged with his murder. There's an obvious piece of evidence to expunge her original conviction which changed the facts of that case: the guy wasn't dead! Obviously you can't expunge a conviction just to try someone again but I think the FACT THE GUY WAS NEVER DEAD would be a pretty important matter in the whole thing legally. It's not the same crime, which seems really important to a double jeopardy defense claim. (I doubt anything like this has actually ever happened though.)

Not that Robert wants to know or use it as anything but a snarky cudgel to ward off people dunking on him for being such a blatant idiot who knows nothing about that which he talks about.
 
It's not the same crime, which seems really important to a double jeopardy defense claim.

This is why the movie's theory is twaddle, in a nutshell. Two different acts = two different charges. You don't get a freebie on murder (or any crime!) just because the original conviction was incorrect.
 
It's been a long time since I practiced, but my recollection -- and what cases I've been reading in my Ahab like obsession to prove this fat fuck is talking out his ass -- is that the state can't bring new charges without new facts. In the situation you describe, if the defendant had already been alleged to have set fire to the building, then they couldn't bring a new case even if they hadn't previously charged arson. There's also a whole body of law about a defendant's course of conduct and whether new cases can be brought or if it was all part of the same act. That's the critical thing -- you can't bring multiple trials stemming from the same act. The biggest exception seems to be conspiracy, which can be alleged separately from the crime itself. There's also jurisdictional issues, but if they can't figure out what federal law Rittenhouse might have broken then they're screwed there as well.

Really, the biggest argument against it is that so far neither Bob nor any of his dimwitted sycophants has mentioned an actual case where this happened. The only one I can even think of that comes close was the debate over whether to charge John Hinckley with murder when James Brady died. But even in that case, there was a new fact -- Brady had died.
You're probably right. I made the arson thing up on the spot because I can't think of an actual example where it would work.

I think we're all falling into Bob's trap of going over the nuance and minutia of what double jeopardy is. Bob doesn't care about double jeopardy. The tweet capped by Adam Baldwin says nothing about it. Bob wants Kyle to die in a federal pound me in the ass prison. He says that Kyle should be tried by a whole new jury and prosecutors if he's found innocent and people should "protest" until that happens. We can infer from this that the process would continue ad infinitum until Kyle is sent to die in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

I think the reason for Bob's animosity towards Kyle is that in Bob's autistic mind he's set up Kyle as some sort of avatar or stand in for all of his political enemies. If Kyle has to die to hurt those fucking invertebrates then sacrifices must be made. There is no such thing as a bad tactic after all. All of this will come as a shock to my fellow Bobologists, I know. I recommend recovery via mixing orange soda and birthday cake ice cream.
 
You're probably right. I made the arson thing up on the spot because I can't think of an actual example where it would work.

I think we're all falling into Bob's trap of going over the nuance and minutia of what double jeopardy is. Bob doesn't care about double jeopardy. The tweet capped by Adam Baldwin says nothing about it. Bob wants Kyle to die in a federal pound me in the ass prison. He says that Kyle should be tried by a whole new jury and prosecutors if he's found innocent and people should "protest" until that happens. We can infer from this that the process would continue ad infinitum until Kyle is sent to die in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

I think the reason for Bob's animosity towards Kyle is that in Bob's autistic mind he's set up Kyle as some sort of avatar or stand in for all of his political enemies. If Kyle has to die to hurt those fucking invertebrates then sacrifices must be made. There is no such thing as a bad tactic after all. All of this will come as a shock to my fellow Bobologists, I know. I recommend recovery via mixing orange soda and birthday cake ice cream.
Exactly, it's like his "I never said Eugenics, so you can't call me a eugenicist" defense. He's just throwing out random terms he's heard of and vaguely understands to try and appear smarter than he really is, and then getting pissy when it doesn't work.
 
You're probably right. I made the arson thing up on the spot because I can't think of an actual example where it would work.

I think we're all falling into Bob's trap of going over the nuance and minutia of what double jeopardy is. Bob doesn't care about double jeopardy. The tweet capped by Adam Baldwin says nothing about it. Bob wants Kyle to die in a federal pound me in the ass prison. He says that Kyle should be tried by a whole new jury and prosecutors if he's found innocent and people should "protest" until that happens. We can infer from this that the process would continue ad infinitum until Kyle is sent to die in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

I think the reason for Bob's animosity towards Kyle is that in Bob's autistic mind he's set up Kyle as some sort of avatar or stand in for all of his political enemies. If Kyle has to die to hurt those fucking invertebrates then sacrifices must be made. There is no such thing as a bad tactic after all. All of this will come as a shock to my fellow Bobologists, I know. I recommend recovery via mixing orange soda and birthday cake ice cream.

This is the best take, really. If you go to what Bob is actually arguing -- that prosecutors routinely hold back some charges so they can try again in case they lose -- then you can immediately see it makes no fucking sense. First of all, because it would be manifestly unjust; second of all, because you never see this actually happen and he's forced to rely on a braindead interpretation of a 20 year old schlock thriller; and third of all because -- lo and behold! -- the Supreme Court addressed this very idea over 40 years ago and said you can't do it.

The Double Jeopardy Clause is not such a fragile guarantee that prosecutors can avoid its limitations by the simple expedient of dividing a single crime into a series of temporal or spatial units.

This is from Brown v. Ohio, where the state of Ohio tried to charge someone with joyriding after failing to convict him of stealing a car. The theft of the car and the operation of the car came from the same act. Bob's genius legal stratagem was already attempted, decades ago, and the court smacked them down for it.
 
I think what they mean is that even if new evidence is found you cannot be charged of a higher or equal crime but you can be tried for a lesser. I'm guessing it's something like you were tried for a murder, found innocent, but later new evidence shows that you set fire to the building while killing the person then you can be tried for the arson? I'm clearly not a lawyer so I could be 100% wrong and so can they.




I think she's a woman. She showed up in this thread before and I posted before and after pictures.
Looking at her twitter feed she did yet another before and after pic comparison.
She claims this is from 2013
View attachment 2713891
She was kind enough to include a better picture of her throat.
View attachment 2713899
You can kinda see the outline of a breast but not like that means much of anything anymore, though maybe it did in 2013.

And this is from 2021
View attachment 2713894
It's difficult to tell but to me it looks like she was this kinda small girl who decided to empower her self by destroying any semblance of femininity by going from smol to swol. The fact that we can actually debate over this and not have a clear answer is the real problem. I can safely say that even if she does have two X chromosomes I would not sex.



@Quixotic Man first discovered it

We don't know the specifics but I believe we did confirm that the address is that of Mommy Chipman.

I think what kicked it off was Bob tweeting about being busy with moving things.
ok yeah, i can see smol to swole in that, she already had a flat chest (and flat-ish ass) so the appearances can be deceiving.

I believe what kicked off the change of address discovery was a very recent tweet where Bob was smugly proclaiming to the world that he had very recently moved out of his leaky basement hovel the address that had been "doxxed". Sort of in a "ha-ha, I'm not there anymore" kind of way. So then someone here weaponized their autism, checked Bob's position in the voter registration, and lo and behold, the new address was now in Lynn, under the address where his mom lives also. So, unless he's just put his new voter registration at his mom's to pwn the kiwis/trolls and just has a new leaky basement hovel where he lives below some different complete asshole strangers, he's literally living in his mom's basement (or upstairs if that's where his room was before unless mommy turned it into a craft room). (tried to fake us out/have us believe he's not AT mommy's by claiming 'this was the time of year for his mom to CALL to ask about getting Canadian Broadcasting Corporation' channel).
Does Bob not know what a lower court is? Even if Rittenhouse could be tried for lesser included offenses (like manslaughter) it would be in the same fucking court. There isn't a separate court for murder, manslaughter, drug offenses, or trespassing. It is all the same fucking court. Most murder trials include lesser charges in jury instructions, and Rittenhouse's trial is going to include several. Whatever is in the jury instructions absolutely cannot be tried again under anything less than extreme circumstances if acquitted (Such as the defendant bribing the jury.)

Also worth noting that Wisconsin doesn't have manslaughter law, but second degree reckless homicide, which is mostly just semantics.

Also he doesn't remember the Ashley Judd film wherein a woman can't be retried for killing her ex-husband because he faked his death and framed her for it already. Which is horribly schlocky and completely untrue (since it would be two separate offenses.) Like the actual interpretation of double jeopardy or Bob's special try again take aren't even remotely close to what happened in that movie.

Edit: Looking at Wisconsin Homicide laws, it would be very difficult to give instructions for first-degree intentional homicide and self-defense without also giving instructions for second degree intentional homicide since the first degree law has provisions for "Mitigating circumstances: Unnecessary defensive force" which is basically self defense but the defendant had an unreasonable belief that force was necessary. So unless Kyle was double parked somewhere, if he is acquitted he won't be in court again for events that night.
That's why I think Bob is actually confusing the Ashley Judd version for the Bruce Boxleitner one but forgot the Bruce Boxleitner one exists and just sorta substituted one memory for the other. Some spetznatz :epik: needs to ask bob directly on twatter whether he's actually confused and thinking of the 1992 Bruce Boxleitner made-for-TV-movie instead of the Ashley Judd 1999 version. The answer to that could be quite enlightening. It has me believing he didn't actually see the Ashley Judd version, or forgot how it went (considering he failed to realize the person in the 1999 version did get convicted and go to prison after all).


Exactly, it's like his "I never said Eugenics, so you can't call me a eugenicist" defense. He's just throwing out random terms he's heard of and vaguely understands to try and appear smarter than he really is, and then getting pissy when it doesn't work.
Bob's concept of Eugenics is "Kill all the speds and darkies" and any similar ideology/idea that doesn't have "kill all the speds and darkies", by definition, cannot be Eugenics, because Bob does not want to kill all the darkies and speds, therefore he is not a Eugenicist.
 
Last edited:
Robert somehow thinks this criminal case will set "precedent" and that's why it's important that Rittenhouse go to prison for murder:
1636847198278.png


More "useless" people he wants rid of:
1636847222057.png

1636847295168.png


Still thinks he's one of the "good ones" though:
1636847258577.png


Totally laid back, never mad, just something he does while he works his job:
1636847317969.png
 
Blobbo probably watches his screeners on a fucking 1080p VA monitor that's as old as his computer, pausing constantly (if ever) while distracted on twitter. As his history shows, he doesn't even stop checking when at a wedding, so this is the insightful diabetic who tries to pretend he can offer valid criticism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back