01/21/2021 CANCELED Calendar Call (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Herndon, Douglas W.) Vacated - per Judge
02/01/2021 CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Herndon, Douglas W.) Vacated - per Judge
03/05/2021 CANCELED Calendar Call (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra) Vacated 03/04/2021Reset by Court to 03/05/2021 03/04/2021Reset by Court to 03/04/2021
03/15/2021 CANCELED Jury Trial (10:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra) Vacated
05/07/2021 Status Check: Trial Readiness (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra)
10/14/2021 Calendar Call (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra) **10/25/2021 **Jury Trial (10:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Jones, Tierra)
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=11959672
Case No. C-19-340617-1
“no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media
The source is very important here .....
"In the below video, Dr. Sal Mercogliano, Associate Professor of History of History at Campbell University and Adjunct Professor at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, along with Captain John Konrad, Founder and CEO of gCaptain, discuss the situation in the Suez Canal with the grounding of the Evergreen containership MV Ever Given.
John and Sal discuss what could have caused the event, what is being done now to clear the ship from the channel, the impact the closure of the canal is having on world trade and commerce, and why this issue should be important not only to shippers, but the government, the military, and every human on the planet since 90% of all goods are moved by sea."
Doesn't mention anything about Konrad being the captain.
where is your source he was the captain of the ever given, or is that what you are saying? Not clear.
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media
I thought it was interesting they supplied a list with pictures. And atleast three are visible as being Xed out. Why wouldn't they just provide a list? No big deal, just thought it was interesting.
No, if this group, as is obvious, has the integrity and moral fortitude to turn down this money, then they should have taken it and used it in their efforts against the big tech titans.
Don't take this garbage seriously. You know the pedigree or lack of within the MSM, newspapers included. If it upsets you, that means you believe they can change or somehow be led to the light. You need to disabuse yourself of that fantasy. They will never change. They will never see the light. Avoid them like the plague as that is what they are and they mean to demoralize you - don't let them. You have given them power in your life - take it back.
If you go to the when will i get my payment tool, it will tell you the date you can expect it. They were correct within one day for mine - actually, it came one day earlier! Again, good luck!!
Think about what you really love doing outside of scrolling patriotswin all day. If you get a job doing something you love, it really isn't a job...
Did you get the last stimulus? If you didn't, then the IRS and Social Security probably do not have direct deposit information on file for you.
https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment
https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/non-filers-enter-payment-info-here
This is the best info I know of, there may be other tools out there. Good Luck.
And all the people said, Amen and Amen.
What's really interesting about your posting history is that you only respond to posts which you can berate or speak negatively about ... if that is your agenda - to increase negativity on this board - I don't think you will, and there are plenty of positive thoughtful and informative posts that could enlighten you and lead you to actions you might take to make things better - somehow I don't think you're interested in making things better ... and your "concern" is becoming more and more transparent ... don't reply. I don't plan on engaging your further. Be blessed and enlightened on your way.
And all the people said, Amen and Amen.
Of all the horrible and evil things transpiring in this world right now, many of them here in this country, you have the time and need to criticize someone who is trying to bring a little light into a mostly darkened world, and a speck of love into a planet where so much hate abides. I could debate you theologically, but that would be a waste of time on both our parts. God bless and guide you.
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media
There's a definite pattern here - any movement on your part towards something positive and likely a blessing, satan, the devil whatever you call it, meets you there and tries to sabotage you. Say your prayers and do your rebuking BEFORE you leave for work every day - even after you have the job! Praying for you ...
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media ... ...
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed...
And the media would have given it exactly how much coverage to get the news out ... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF you speak of will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media ... though reading your post, maybe we do.
They were defamation cases, don't get your point. I don't watch either, used to watch Carlson.
“Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
It's still there - the question is how active is it?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZK1hpDvUwvXx/