And if you have an attorney who is present and allows you to talk to them, FIRE that attorney and find one who isn’t a dumbass.
Think of it this way: the feds are door to door salesmen trying to sell you a pair of handcuffs and astronomical legal fees, whether you did anything illegal or not.
Not surprising at all. Half his family was arrested in the Tennessee Waltz scandal for being corrupt af and he was fired from Morgan Stanley for sexual harassment.
**Bar Associations are clubs, they are considering kicking him out, not taking his license to practice law. ****** The Bar Association cannot disbar him or take his license.
Correct. Bar Associations are clubs, not the governing body of licensed attorneys.
After al he’s been through today, being evacuated etc. and his hair still looked fucking phenomenal when he lectured those cucks.
I’m there with occasional spurts of mind numbing rage.
Hahahaha but he did. We’ve BEEN relying on him having a plan and where is it?? He doesn’t have one or it failed.
It could be full of videos of her raping children and no one would care.
Username checks out. Give em hell!
You mean Nashville, not memphis, right?
My alarm system is offline and they have no idea when they’ll be back up.
I’m in TN and my alarm system keeps malfunctioning. Called the alarm company and the guy said because of the “cell tower” bombing, which I found very odd. The automated system says that no monitoring has been interrupted but the tech said that we are offline so if something happens don’t expect them to show up call 911.
You don't have the right to an attorney until you are charged. The best thing to do if approached is be calm and polite, leave if requested, and if arrested, then do NOT give a statement and ask for an attorney asap.
Any competent attorney won't allow you to talk to the police at all. The only time I have been with into a police station with a client was to drag them out of an interview room. Don't talk, period.
What’s the make up of the PA Supreme Court like?
The opinion did not give the power to legislators to choose electors. A preliminary injunction was issued to maintain the status quo and keep the Secretary of State from taking further steps to certify pending a full hearing in this case. The judge did say in her ruling that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success of showing that the law passed that allowed absentee (mail in) ballots without a specific reason the voter couldn’t vote in person was not valid. The state constitution clearly says absentee votes are only allowed in these specific circumstances and they only passed legislation allowing absentee for anyone who wants a mail in ballot but did not amend the state constitution.
Can someone link the opinion?
Happy to help, fren!
Just based on that opinion, I can say it doesn’t appear the PA results have been certified. The Dems did some half ass press release without all the other formalities to say “we certified, so it’s over dismiss their lawsuit.” And the republicans said nah you have to go through all these formalities and you didn’t do that and also they ONLY claimed to certify the president and VP race and the republicans and the court don’t think they can certify some races and not others. So the court basically assumed the republicans were right, and based on the fact that it was only a press release, very informal, and said it doesn’t appear they’re certified, you cannot take any other steps to certify pending a hearing.
Summary of the opinion: When the Republicans filed suit the Secretary of State told the court they hadn’t certified the results. Then, after a telephonic hearing with the court where they said that, the dems issued a press release saying that the vote was certified and then filed something with the court saying it was certified so the lawsuit was moot, or invalid because the results were already certified. The republicans said nahhh there are all these other steps to take to certify results and they haven’t done that. So the court says if there are other steps to be taken to certify results, dems are prohibited from taking further action to certify pending a full hearing where evidence can be presented.
Court says There’s no harm to the dems because electoral college Votes are not cast until 12/14 so given the dems actions it’s necessary to issue an emergency injunction prohibiting them from certifying. (Important: The standard for issuing an emergency injunction like this is that if the court doesn’t do it, one side will suffer irreparable harm.)
ALSO the court opines that the republicans have shown a likelihood they they will succeed on their claim that allowing mail in voting without one of the excuses as to why a voter can’t vote in person, which is required by the state constitution, without amending the state constitution (which they didn’t) is invalid on its face.
Court says the democrats saying the republicans point is moot and allowing them to take further steps to certify and not issue an emergency injunction prohibiting them from certifying could disenfranchise millions of voters, when issuing an emergency stay of certifying won’t disenfranchise anyone because the electoral college votes don’t have to be cast until mid December.
Yasssss! Consider this my preorder!
Damn can us ladypedes get a proud boys calendar shoot?
I spend a good amount of money there, well I used to. Never again. Fuck them, ULTA is closer to my house anyway.