Love these feel-good stories. More please.
But with more deterrence tactics to prevent them from ever returning. On a related but separate note, scientific studies show that physical ass-beatings are effective deterrence tactics.
Any sauce or nah? I'm as skeptical as the next pede about Big Pharma treatments, but I don't recall ever reading or hearing of evidence that AZT killed AIDS-infected homos.
Dude, there are literally dozens of studies proving HCQ works. You just can't read about them due to Fauci & Co.'s censorship.
Wait, wut? I thought AZT is what saved the gays from AIDS.
Never treated an actual patient his whole life.
be stretchin'!
Nah, nowadays the democrat/communist narrative and talking points are created through Shadowgate. Brennan created it and still runs it.
He absolutely could have fired every single US Attorney in America, just like Clinton did on Day One and like Biden did his first week in stolen office.
Ever hear a jogger speaking spanish?
Ok, point taken. From now on, i will endeavor to educate instead of running my ugly mouth. I had a moment of frustration that in the light of day I now see was petty.
There are two types of appeals. The most common is an appeal from a final judgment. A verdict is a final judgment. But, a ruling on a motion to dismiss can also be a final judgment - if it is granted. Granting a motion to dismiss gets rid of the case that was filed, but a plaintiff (the one filing suit) is almost always given at least one more bite at the apple to amend the complaint and try again. But denying a motion to dismiss does not get rid of the case; the case continues to move forward. The person who filed the motion to dismiss that got denied might like to appeal, but since it was not a final judgment, he or she cannot appeal unless both the trial judge and the appeals court agree to allow an appeal. This is the second type of appeal, called an "interlocutory" appeal.
Certain kinds of interlocutory rulings automatically provide a right of appeal, but they are few are far between and the rules differ from state to state. In my state, a ruling granting or denying a motion for preliminary injunction is subject to automatic interlocutory appeal. So is a ruling on a motion to change custody in a divorce case. An order granting a motion to appoint a receiver is also immediately appealable, but not an order denying such a motion. Same with a motion to substitute a new judge due to the current judge's bias: granting the motion is appealable, but denying the motion is not.
The federal courts have their own rules about when you can file an appeal before a final judgment is entered. Generally speaking, there are fewer situations in which you can file an interlocutory appeal; you must wait until final judgment is entered.
In PV's case, denying the NYT's motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, so NYT cannot appeal as a matter of right. They can ask the appeals court to allow them to appeal the decision, but such permission is only granted in exceptional cases. Since there's no automatic right of appeal, if NYT doesn't get permission to appeal, then PV gets to go through the next phase of the case, which is discovery. That's where they get to see the juicy internal emails of NYT employees discussing the story before they print it, because those emails are relevant to whether or not what NYT said was "malicious," meaning knowingly false or made with reckless indifference to the truth and with intent to cause harm to the subject of the statement.
Why do people spew stuff on the internet when they have zero knowledge or understanding of the topic? It's one of the great mysteries of the modern day. Let's dig into this example. What's the basis on which you posted your clearly erroneous, uninformed and 100% incorrect opinion? Did you hesitate for a second before hitting "save" on your post? Is it your personal arrogance that caused you to do that? Or a thought rolling around in your head that you're right even when speaking on things you have no knowledge of or experience in? Genuinely curious, cuz you're either too stupid to know when you don't know something, or you're arrogant enough to say something knowing you have no actual knowledge base from which to make the statement?
A court "finds" facts in a case before applying the law to those facts to reach a holding. So courts both "find" and "hold." Source: me after decades of practicing law.
Read about Zacchaeus's encounter with Jesus. Or the encounter with the woman at the well. Also the parable of the Pharisee and the sinner who prayed at the temple. There's always a change in behavior, be it large or small. At the root, the salvation comes from your attitude toward God.
This argument, though valid, was rejected by Roberts when he upheld mandatory health insurance (a/k/a Obamacare).
No fucking chance of actual liability. The case would never go to the jury. It's literally impossible to prove causation.
That's where I draw the 2A line. If the vax'ers come to my house to force-jab my family, they better send bachelors.
Blackmailed, very likely.
Stop using critical thinking skills, bigot!
Four trillion freshly printed notes, just this past year.
I was always pro cop until recent years and always believed if someone got arrested they must be guilty. Then I got called for jury duty and watched a week-long trial in which a young black guy was being prosecuted for "aggravated assault on a police officer." He was facing 20 years in prison for supposedly biting a cop who was arresting him.
Being a white conservative lawyer, I was sure I would be struck from the jury pool. But one after another, people got disqualified for bias. I ended up being the 12th juror selected. Nine jurors were white and three were black.
The case began falling apart the minute the testimony started coming in. Cop after cop got on the stand and lied. They couldn't keep their stories straight. The prosecution's "star" witness couldn't even get the "victim's" name right:
Q: What happened next? A: Officer Martinez identified himself and told the defendant to lie down. Q: What happened next? A: Officer Ramirez repeated the order but the defendant disobeyed. Q: Then what? A: Officer Gonzalez then tackled the defendant. Q: What happened next? A: That's when the defendant bit officer Sanchez on the arm.
It was a joke. Then the public defender called the doctor who treated the officer. The doctor had no memory of the incident, saying he treats thousands of people in the ER. The defense showed the doctor a photo of the "bite mark" and asked if the photo showed a bite wound. The doctor said, "No, that looks like a burn." And it was! So obvious. Other independent witnesses confirmed that none of what the prosecution claimed was actually true.
We went back to the jury room and I was elected foreperson. I asked for a show of hands if anyone thought the defendant was guilty. Five people raised their hands. I had everyone around the table speak their mind. "He just seems guilty." "I believe the cops." I went last and rattled off a dozen instances in which the cops obviously lied, and said I thought the only crime committed was the prosecution's audacity to bring such an obviously bullshit case. We then took an official vote and all twelve voted to acquit.
This past year has affirmed everything I learned in that case about how cops really are.
This is the most soul-lifting thing I've seen in more than a year. Thank God for this man and other courageous pastors who stand up to these Nazis. John MacArthur in California is another one.
I thought it was Ass-Fucked Trannies, thanks for the clarification.