Notices by FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st), page 2

Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 31-May-2024 07:53:27 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@Goalkeeper @PunishedD @qwerty I doubt it. Appeals require a findings of facts and law. The higher judges will have to explain why the decisions they make are apt. And no, it is not just about the evidence, itself. Reversible error is grounds for appeal.

In conversation about 6 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 31-May-2024 07:53:25 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@Goalkeeper @sapphire @PunishedD @qwerty Instructing the jury that they do not have to agree on what, exactly, is the underlying crime that made this misdemeanor, passed the statute of limitations, into a 34 count felony was NOT something made by the "state" or voted on by anyone. That was the judge's instructions. And, given that no one has ever been tried on these charges in this way, eg. a novel interpretation of the law, means that there is no standing or prior precedents for how to handle this case. One of many grounds for apoeal.

In conversation about 6 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 31-May-2024 07:53:24 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@sapphire @Goalkeeper @PunishedD @qwerty Would love to know what case he's talking about, and who exactly that is making that assertion.

In conversation about 6 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 31-May-2024 07:48:26 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
- :watamelon: Xylo ?
@qwerty No. New York state crimes are not his to pardon.

In conversation about 6 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 31-May-2024 07:48:24 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
- :watamelon: Xylo ?
- PunishedD
@PunishedD @qwerty It won't stand on appeal. Every time the judge over-ruled the defense or sustained an objection by the prosecutors, is grounds for appeal.

In conversation about 6 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 23:31:57 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@SAKURARadiochan @doctorsex @Liquid_Boss @alchemy @sickburnbro That's a version of the NA(((X)))ALT fallacy.

No one is saying "jews are responsible for everything bad". Yes, some people go overboard, but how are people supposed to argue their point if this is your strawman contention.

What are people saying, specifically? You'll find that if you answer that, then you'll get plenty of people explaining why that assertion is apt.

In conversation about 6 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 10-May-2024 00:08:06 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
- kaia
- on-lain ✔ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ
@lain @kaia Why? Serious question.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:58 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@Spingebill @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf How did they define it?

When the assault weapons ban was passed in the US, the definition used was about attachments and barrel length. CA's definition just made the AR look retarded.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:57 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf For now, I do not feel the battle has been lost. 26 states are now constitutional carry and the last 3 SCOTUS decisions were to reverse gun laws that were prohibitive, and using good language in the precedent. The Heller decision had some troubling statements (The right to own a gun is a privilege.) but it looks like things are tending towards more secure gun rights.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:56 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@dictatordave @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @graf I think the SCOTUS is beginning to recognize that their role is to prevent the masses from revolt.

Had they so chose, they could have backed the jab mandate, for example, but 20% of this country would have gone straight into a resistance role. If 10% of that 20% had become violent, that would have been 6 million violent people.

It's the same with our guns. SCOTUS might allow some regulations, but they are well aware that the people have had it with faggots like Joe Biden. Notice that he got exactly nowhere with his promise to ban assault rifles and has lost several ATF lawsuits.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:55 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf They can't pack the court. That was fearmingering at best. The SCOTUS itself will not allow the 6-3 majority to be removed by faggots in Congress or at the Executive level.

And, if revolt is what they want, the courts could have stood by OSHA and set the jab mandate. It would have kicked off a revolution that day.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:54 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf Can you show me where that is written in the Constitution? I don't recall that being a thing.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:53 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf Section 1 gives congress the authority to create inferior courts

Section 2 gives the Senate the authority to advise and consent for appointees to the Supreme Court.

If you'd suggest that an interpretation of Section 2 by having the authority to advise and consent to appoint judges to the Supreme Court as the method to create new vacancies, I'd suggest that this is where the Supreme Court could disagree, and it is the Supreme Court under Article 3 Section 1 that has "The judicial Power of the United States, ..."

It doesn't say that Senate has the power to authorize new appointments, only to advise and consent to appoint those appointees to the SCOTUS. Ultimately, SCOTUS would have the final say, as they always do in matters of law and constitutional interpretation.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:52 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf Article 3 section 1 gives the SCOTUS the judicial authority to be the final say in all matters of legal interpretation and constitutional compliance challenges.

Which is to say that if a challenge to a court packing was brought before them, they could intervene using Stari Decisis.

When you look, up until the Civil War, the number was simply based on the number of circuit courts there were in the US. It seems to get more political as time went on after that, but "court packing" was seen as a bad thing and a power grab, and the label was used to defeat Presidential efforts to change the balance of power in the courts.

But yes, it looks like if a President wants additional judges and Congress can bring a vote, bypass filibuster in the Senate, and pass legislation to do so, then it could be done. And, once done, the court could intervene if a challenge was brought against the law. I don't see the number of judges changing any time in our lives.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:51 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf No, I'm quoting Article 3 Section 1 and Section 2 where it says,

>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

And

>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

And, while lawyers like to reinterpret Marbury v. Madison to suggest that the courts have the "final say", what MvM says is that the People have the final say in that they can challenge any law as being null and void and bring that challenge before the court to argue their case. Once determined by the courts to be unconstitutional, then that law (or at least that section of law) becomes null and void under MvM.

The challenge must be brought by the people, but once that challenge is brought, the court makes the decisions regarding legal interpretation and constitutional compliance.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 29-Apr-2024 22:55:55 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@jeffcliff @DutchBoomerMan @EightEight @JedDrudge @pyrate @mk @curtis Yeah, like fibromyalgia.

Define "Long Covid" using non-ambiguous terms and tell me what are the best tests to determine if someone has long covid, caused by the virus that causes covid, versus the jab, some other ailments, or just malingering, other than asking someone how they feel and basing a determination or diagnosis, solely on muh feelz.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 29-Apr-2024 22:55:53 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@jeffcliff @DutchBoomerMan @EightEight @JedDrudge @pyrate @mk @curtis Also, this. Long flu.

>There were signs that Covid patients were more likely to have long-term symptoms - 42% had at least one symptom recorded compared with 30% in the flu group.

bbc.com/news/health-58726775

Of course, no age parsing or jab status parsing. No definitions. No actual tests run. Social studies. Muh feelz. Fake and ghey.

Same with "long colds".

theguardian.com/science/2023/oct/06/people-may-suffer-long-colds-more-than-four-weeks-after-infection-study-shows
In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Attachments
1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: i.guim.co.uk
  
  People may suffer ‘long colds’ more than four weeks after infection, study shows
  
  from https://www.theguardian.com/profile/andrew-gregory
  
  Results in the Lancet’s EClinicalMedicine journal found a ‘similar risk’ of long-term symptoms as those with Covid
2. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: ichef.bbci.co.uk
  
  People also suffer 'long flu', study shows
  
  Similar to Covid, other viruses can cause prolonged symptoms that take time to get over.
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 29-Apr-2024 22:55:53 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@jeffcliff @DutchBoomerMan @EightEight @JedDrudge @pyrate @mk @curtis Cut and paste their definition of "long covid". It most certainly is not non-ambiguous, and every ailment mentioned in the study relates to psychology, completely vague and relies solely on the "patient" discussing how they think they feel. Nothing in that study is something a doctor can run a test for to determine if the "patient" actually has "long civid", got it from the virus that causes covid (not the jab itself), and are simply not just making shit up.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 18-Apr-2024 10:12:29 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@jeffcliff @rchusid @JedDrudge @Jonaschuzzlewit @nordtrack @Ghislaine @bonifartius @bot I just caught this. The actual headline of this article.

>Rare link between coronavirus vaccines and Long Covid–like illness starts to gain acceptance

"Long Covid Like Illness" caused by the jab.

They did a very similar thing with vaccines and autism. They "proved" that vaccines do not cause autism by defining the word "autism" to be a genetic disorder and showed that the vaccines could not possible cause a genetic disorder. Then, quietly admitted that the vaccines cause autism like illnesses. Whether it's autism or autism like illness, the schools are filled with retards and all of them are being called autists.

And, now that I think about it, isn't Gates in trouble in India for his vaccine causing the illness it purports to vaccinate you from? Calling it a Polio Like Illness.

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Embed this notice
FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 18-Apr-2024 10:12:29 JST FreeinTX
in reply to
@jeffcliff @rchusid @JedDrudge @Jonaschuzzlewit @nordtrack @Ghislaine @bonifartius @bot Yeah, I got it. Explain why Jimmy Dore and his MD Doctor call the damage thar he suffered from the jab "long covid".

Or explain this.

science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance
In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment

After
Before

Public

Notices by FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st), page 2

User actions

Following 0

Followers 0

Groups 0

Statistics

Feeds