Gromnir

fed rule 11 every state has an analogous provision... typically identified as "rule 11." so, yes, but... can the lawyers be punished is different than will they be punished. rule 11 is considered an extraordinary measure. ... the thing is, more than a few o' these lawsuits is pushing any reasonable boundary. example is a recent arizona case where the judge identified the factual offerings o' a kraken lawsuit as little more than a mess of "innuendo and gossip," and am actual leaving out some o' the more colorful observations from the ruling. so, why not sanctions? keep in mind more than a few state judges is elected and not for life as with fed appointments, but am not able to give you a good answer. is a few courts contorting themselves into knots avoiding sanctions, as with a detroit case a couple weeks previous where trump campaign lawyers overt lied 'bout affidavits. lies to court 'bout facts is kinda a guarantee o' sanctions and may result in criminal prosecution o' the offending lawyer. a few o' the withdrawn cases by trump and the kraken layers were no doubt withdrawn 'cause o' warnings o' sanctions. meritless is not same as frivolous and insane legal theories is not gonna get the sanction treatment. the texas case getting attention today is meritless as it posits an asinine theory o' standing which would complete unravel the court system as we know it, and am not indulging in hyperbole. however, heretofore "insane" legal theories has been adopted by the Court more than once. is nevertheless a grey area. please keep in mind we has stated previous how rudy's equal protection silliness were insane 'cause o' the relief he were seeking and not necessarily 'cause o' the legal theory itself. underrepresented groups has for decades been trying to change discriminatory election laws based on equal protection theories-- almost universal fails. what made rudy claims preposterous were the relief he sought and as judge ultimate tailors relief, is unlikely gonna result in sanctions. can request relief o' 100 trillion dollars 'cause you claim to have found a partial denture in your wendy's frosty is nuts, but is not rule 11 fodder. absence o' any supporting facts will result in sanctions although absence o' facts at the time the lawsuit is filed ain't even enough to draw a judicial response. if lawyers may show they believed they would eventual have necessary facts to support their theories, they may avoid sanctions. the thing is, the kraken and trump campaign lawsuits has more than once drifted deep into the hunt sic dracones area o' the map. to provide nothing save the mere possibility o' fraud is not legit and should result in sanctions. "innuendo and gossip"? much o' what makes trump campaign lawsuits frivolous from a plain english reading o' rule 11 will be resulting in confusion. ask for stoopid relief or have a wacky legal theory won't necessarily make a lawsuit frivolous. however, attorneys knowing mislead 'bout facts should be a no-brainer for judges considering sanctions, and such has been the situation more than once post november 3. am admitted a bit confused even if am knowing threat o' sanctions no doubt killed more than a couple trump and kraken lawsuits which is why there were so many voluntary dismissals. HA! Good Fun!

the terrible reality is trump is winning where it matters most: his pac bank account. these ridiculous lawsuits has resulted in millions o' dollars in legal fees, but trump campaign pac solicitations has garnered hundreds o' millions o' dollars in contributions. trump may even believe he were cheated, but am suspecting his primary goal at this point is more 'bout money than electoral college votes. given his reported enormous debt which comes due over the course o' the next couple years, as well as multiple pending criminal and civil legal fights, am tending to believe trump is more focused on what happens to citizen trump after january 20, 2021 as 'posed to the fantasies o' another four years in office. sure, remain President would be a bonus for trump and would keep him out of rikers, but hundreds o' millions o' dollars in post election contributions for a campaign which were in the red on november 3, 2020 is a kinda win. is hard to believe, but is a no-lose scenario for trump. win in court means trump remains President, but win in court would mean an end to the court battles which is a money generating machine. converse, losing in court has the curious effect o' prolonging the money grab. remain President or continue to see mind boggling millions o' dollars funneled into the trump pac? where is the down side? the legal losses is an enormous scam and is all perfect legal in part 'cause o' f'ing citizens united. we would laugh at trump losses if not for fact his working class base is paying for this newest Presidential ponzi scheme, and those blue collar patriots don't even realize they is being scammed. although we can't help but wonder if a few o' the sudden taciturn obsidian board trump supporters contributed to the myriad legal defense efforts o' the President... such would indeed be good for a laugh. at this point am doubting the board trumpers would admit if they had made such contributions, but you never know. have been shocked more than once by the stuff the trump faithful is willing to admit to and am even more puzzled by the perverse pride exhibited by the those who see their muslim ban grifter as the champion for the marginalized working class americans. surreal. HA! Good Fun!

we would try and explain the current disposition o' trump campaign and kraken lawsuits. but am not sure where to start or finish. is a wisconsin trump lawsuit which names biden and harris as defendants as if either has any capacity to change ballots in wisconsin. texas, in a bid to get direct to scotus, has named a handful o' other states as defendants. is creative, but wholly w/o merit. the texas state solicitor who is responsible for arguing before scotus is noticeable absent from the texas complaint. were a few wacky kraken lawsuits where expert witnesses were anonymous and did not make selves available to respond to the court... which is decided not how expert testimony works. these ain't intelligence assets having their identity kept secret to protect national security. kraken cases keep being dismissed for failure to show proof o' fraud. more fundamental, the kraken claims almost universal fail to show proper standing and the courts furthermore observe how the redress being sought is... insane-- disenfranchisement o' millions o' voters 'cause o' either minor clerical quibbles or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. the pennsylvania fed case which were shot down by the appellate court last week has yet to be filed with scotus, which severe undermines the suggestion the real goal were to get scotus review. more curious, the weird pennsylvania supreme court case involving a gop state legislator who won his election bid and were nevertheless seeking redress from the court for his injury, has been appealed to scotus, although the case were decided complete on state law so is near nothing genuine reviewable by a fed court, so even if the gop legislator managed a favorable scotus decision, it wouldn't make any difference as the state issues would continue to preclude any sorta meaningful outcome. oh, and jenna ellis, the other trump lawyer, has tested positive for covid 'ccording to multiple sources. today is safe harbor day for electoral college, which in theory means all states should concluded legal challenges. UPDATE: the scotus case we mentioned 'bove wherein a state representative o' pennsylvania submitted an application for injunctive relief is doa-- denied via a single-sentence ruling. HA! Good Fun!

as a child we knew there were no santa. however, we were not told santa's non-existence were a state secret to be kept from all children under the age of ____. the santa subject did come up once when we were attending school in first grade. off reservation. so, back in the early 70s, a native kid (Gromnir) accidental ruined christmas for a dozen or so white kids in south dakota. caused a bit o' a p00p storm for our grandparents who were raising us... and we got a talking to from school vice principal and a couple teachers. ... 'course we also told or sister that she were adopted... which wasn't true. HA! Good Fun!

the anticipated trump phone call with Justice Barrett: am wondering when somebody gets around to informing trump that Justices have lifetime appointments. HA! Good Fun!

trevor slattery were a bit fuzzy on the details. The Horrific Sand Creek Massacre Will Be Forgotten No More “At daylight this morning attacked Cheyenne village of 130 lodges, from 900 to 1,000 warriors strong,” Chivington wrote his superior late on November 29. His men, he said, waged a furious battle against well-armed and entrenched foes, ending in a great victory: the deaths of several chiefs, “between 400 and 500 other Indians” and “almost an annihilation of the entire tribe.” This news was greeted with acclaim, as were Chivington’s troops, who returned to Denver displaying scalps they’d cut from Indians (some of which became props in celebratory local plays). But this gruesome revelry was interrupted by the emergence of a very different storyline. Its primary author was Capt. Silas Soule, a militant abolitionist and eager warrior, like Chivington. Soule, however, was appalled by the attack on Sand Creek, which he saw as a betrayal of peaceful Indians. He refused to fire a shot or order his men into action, instead bearing witness to the massacre and recording it in chilling detail. “Hundreds of women and children were coming towards us, and getting on their knees for mercy,” he wrote, only to be shot and “have their brains beat out by men professing to be civilized.” Indians didn’t fight from trenches, as Chivington claimed; they fled up the creek and desperately dug into its sand banks for protection. From there, some young men “defended themselves as well as they could,” with a few rifles and bows, until overwhelmed by carbines and howitzers. Others were chased down and killed as they fled across the Plains. Soule estimated the Indian dead at 200, all but 60 of them women and children. He also told of how the soldiers not only scalped the dead but cut off the “Ears and Privates” of chiefs. “Squaws snatches were cut out for trophies.” Of Chivington’s leadership, Soule reported: “There was no organization among our troops, they were a perfect mob—every man on his own hook.” Given this chaos, some of the dozen or so soldiers killed at Sand Creek were likely hit by friendly fire.

adopted another dog. *sigh* the little mutt is less than 4.5lbs and is a couple years old. not a great deal o' fur at the moment, but his coat were in terrible shape when rescued. am suspecting some fur will grow back... maybe. he had a terrible infection in his front left leg and were likely gonna need amputation, so we paid for treatment and as luck would have it the limb is salvageable. should make some kinda recovery if not total. ... have never in our life bought a sweater for a dog. had never considered the possibility. the little fella is not a shaky little dog, but given his non-coat, ridiculous size and other health issues, we bought him a fleece-lined vest, we kid you not. am now that guy: the schnook who buys clothes for dogs. we would explain how/why we adopted, but it doesn't make much sense. all that mattered is that he needed a home and we got space and plenty o' free time, so... am gonna need name him. at the moment he is current recovering from medical treatment and we will bring him home on monday. gotta couple days to decide name. HA! Good Fun!

another misunderstanding. is two potential cases going to The Court. first one is the sequestered votes case which The Court is ignoring-- The Court received the request to hear but they have made no move to do anything 'bout the issue. the taciturn SCOTUS approach as to the sequestered ballots is understandable as the issue is moot-- weren't enough sequestered pa votes to make any kinda difference. why would the Court intervene in a contentious political fight where their decision would have no impact on the final outcome? the other case, which has rudy attempting to disallow more than a million votes based on an equal protection claim without a showing fraud, or proof for that matter, does not offer SCOTUS the possibility o' handing trump co a win. SCOTUS cannot review what weren't argued and decided. even if rudy were to win his current case, all that would happen is the first court which heard the case would take up the issue once more, but this time the standing issue would be satisfied, as that is what is being appealed. is tough to see an endgame where trump is successful in Court. there were a possibility before the first rudy fail in the 3rd district that the goal were to achieve SCOTUS review, but given the narrow appeal after that loss, am not seeing a viable SCOTUS win for trump. assuming there is an endgame, the following is the actual strategy: the shenanigans by rudy is a delay tactic while he, ellis and others spout conspiracy theories outside the confines o' courtrooms where they would need provide real proof. trump recent suggested that he would leave the wh only if biden proved his 80 million votes were legit, when actual burden is on trump and his lawyers to prove the votes were fraudulent. ... is tough to see how the political fight where pennsylvania legislators disenfranchise millions will be more successful than the legal battle rudy is comical fighting, but if the choice is between no possibility o' a win (legal) and a novel approach which has state legislators ignore election results (political,) then am seeing the appeal o' the political route. however, keep in mind that trump needs political mutinies in three o' the battleground states he lost to change biden's electoral college win. a SCOTUS endgame is doomed. political, on the other hand... likely doomed, but the thing too many people keep forgetting is that there is no Constitutional right for Americans to vote for President. still seems doomed, but am trying to see a reason to fight other then the obvious, which is grift. as long as trump continues to fight against the inevitable, he has the opportunity to request his supporters contribute money, and currently 75% o' such monies is going to the trump leadership pac. looks like a scam. HA! Good Fun!

you cannot. even where is not strictly illegal to do so, is unethical and would result in not only law enforcement being subject to discipline but would be a fruit of the poisonous tree situation and the evidence would be disallowed. the notion that flynn's signed declaration o' truthful testimony to law enforcement woulda' been disallowed in most western countries, much less most o' the world, (am honest unable to speak to south america but most o' asia and africa is having a jaundiced pov when it comes to suspect rights) is based on ignorance. hard to believe this is still being argued. not really a fuzzy grey area. yet another gop lawsuit bites the dust... dismissed with prejudice. this were the curious lawsuit where a pa gop legislator who successfully won reelection in 2020 were claiming he were injured by the pennsylvania mail-in scheme passed and signed into law last year... and then brought a lawsuit to enjoin all pennsylvania 202 election mail-in ballots received, but only after the election results were certified. ... the genuine strange aspect o' this lawsuit were that it made it to the state supreme court. HA! Good Fun!

given the string o' gop court losses... the game were a curious album for queen. this may be apocryphal, but is our understanding that michael jackson convinced freddie mercury and his bandmates that a record that people could dance to is what were needed to take queen to the next level. HA! Good Fun!

best news 'bout a covid-19 thanksgiving is we do not need apologize to more than 1/2 o' our family for observing thanksgiving... save by email. will take any win we can find this year. happy thanksgiving.

miranda is relevant to custodial interrogations subsequent to arrest. flynn were not arrested when he lied to law enforcement. however, if you are attempting to convince law enforcement to discontinue investigations, then refusing to speak with law enforcement, which is your right, is frequent abandoned by folks such as flynn. try and imagine what woulda' happened if flynn had refused to speak to the fbi. sure, is not a crime to refuse to speak to the fbi, but the fbi and the washington post would quick announce to the world that general flynn had refused to cooperate with an fbi investigation involving russian agents. in 2020 such would be what we would expect from a trump appointee, but in 2016 it woulda' caused a p00p storm o' bad press and a whole lotta conjecture on both sides o' the aisle as to why the new appointed NSA were refusing to aid in fbi investigations. this were wrong precise 'cause of 5th amendment. there is no such law and 5th amendment precludes such. duh. is odd how one person may be so preternatural wrong in spite o' being so certain they is correct. HA! Good Fun!

been down that rabbit hole many times. again, you somehow believe 5th amendment didn't apply to flynn in his interactions with the fbi. is clear a fundamental misconception... more than one. HA! Good Fun!

what on earth are you talking 'bout? flynn made statements to law enforcement and signed documents as to the veracity o' his recollections. those statements flynn made to law enforcement and declared truthful with multiple signatures on documentation were untrue. those documented lies get him criminalized in just about any western nation. oh, and am guessing fact flynn were creating a national security risk with his lies would make it UNIVERSAL that he woulda' been prosecuted as every nation we know o' frowns 'pon such stuff. and your misunderstanding 'bout the 5th amendment will no doubt amuse most americans who read this thread. am uncertain what makes you believe 5th amendment protections against self incrimination do not apply to fbi interrogations, but am thinking such misunderstanding is foundational to your mistakes. HA! Good Fun!

when skarp_one said, "in any other lawful western country," he actually meant Poland. good to know. 'cause in most other western nations, flynn signing documents following questioning by law enforcement as to the truthfulness o' his statements woulda' exposed himself to criminal prosecution if he had lied... which he did. btw, we got 5th amendment which provides in part and is codifying opposite o' needing present testimony against self or suffer punishment. so, wrong 'bout that too. dependable rule of thumb: if is law, assume skarp_one is wrong. wouldn't count on skarp_one being right 'bout Poland neither as we has seen in the past he is as ignorant 'bout polish law as he is 'bout law elsewheres. we would look into the matter save for am preparing thanksgiving meal. maybe tomorrow. HA! Good Fun!

don't listen to skarp_one about... anything. particular not legal. lie to cops is illegal in many countries. even where lie to cops is not inherent illegal, what flynn did woulda' been illegal in almost all the rest. flynn lied in formal interviews with the fbi and signed declarations his statements were truthful to best of his knowledge. those signed declarations is transformative in most european jurisdictions and canada. put it in writing makes a difference in europe 'cause such writings is identified as declarations to the court. is also worth noting how flynn lied to fbi about interactions with a russian agent. such a lie exposed flynn to compromise by the russians as they were aware he lied. the national security aspect o' flynn's lie woulda exposed him to criminal prosecution in any number o' countries even if the crime would not have been the lie itself but the compromise. HA! Good Fun!

one assumes gd has considered health insurance, and as a veteran he gets a few extra benefits. however, most o' us do not like to consider long term care issues, but retirees need do so. live in an rv, moving from parking lot to parking lot, makes the at-home and community services the va provides problematic. more significant is the premiums on long term health insurance. if gd don't care 'bout the quality o' his care, he may be able to swing long term insurance for an additional $2000 per year beyond what he is paying for ordinary health insurance. that right there is a significant % o' his $20k. the $2000 offerings isn't universal terrible and am honest not certain how terrible is such facilities in tennessee, but the spectrum largely runs from terrible to less terrible with genuine comfortable only available to ultra wealthy. 'course perhaps the plan is to eat his .45 if he needs long term care, in which case long term care insurance is an academic question. ... that said, we have a plan for our pets to be cared for after our eventual and inevitable death. the rest is trivialities. HA! Good Fun!

republican governor, tom ridge. HA! Good Fun! ps flynn is just the first. anybody who could be used as a witness against trump in future litigation will likely be pardoned so as to remove leverage options available to the justice department. is the fact this pardon doesn't surprise anybody which should be shocking to everybody.

by selective quote use, we found agreement with gd. am suspecting we could survive on $20k, but not as part o' a retirement plan. our pov is you gotta assume the fates will conspire against you. our initial goal were deciding on comfort level and then making certain we had 1/3 more than that... and then we decided double were more prudent. our rather impoverished developmental years made us a bit weird 'bout money. no lose situation 'cause whatever excess we have is going to st jude children's research hospital, a couple different cancer foundations, and a small number o' local charities... am adding these folks to the list-- they also offer services for small dog owners. HA! Good Fun!

Gaetz: Trump 'should pardon everyone' including himself to quash liberal 'bloodlust' the notion o' a President pardoning himself is a doa legal argument. fundamental rule o' law: "no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself." however, it got us thinking 'bout biden pardoning trump. sure, most folks is gonna laugh at our suggestion, but what if biden offers full pardon for any and all federal crimes... but only those crimes trump admits to? trump is offered a get-out-of-jail-free card with no takebacksees and biden gets to be gracious and merciful to a defeated political foe. undercuts signifficat the democrats out for blood argument, no? sure, trump would never accept such an offer, and from a legal standpoint, it is an offer. (is another reason the self-pardon is a idiotic suggestion. legal cannot make an offer to self.) trump would no doubt refuse biden's offer of pardon tied to admission o' guilt, but am thinking the offer itself would be a political win for biden and would put trump in a difficult position. HA! Good Fun!

that military personnel would need submit to vaccination were never in question. although as we noted, the current guidelines has vaccines being voluntary for military personnel if is no fda approval, and emergency approval don't count. once there is fda approval, it don't matter what your personal reservations 'bout vaccinations may be-- you get your shots. biden could change the current guidelines to include emergency approval. but again... from a legal pov, the issue is gonna be those civilians employees working at military healthcare sites. HA! Good Fun!

clarification: the US and the various States will not legislate universal vaccine mandates particular in the current political climate, am not seeing how such would work. is legal possible for the government to require vaccinations (until jacobson is overturned) but is a lack o' political clout to legislate such mandates when literal +40% o' people is dubious 'bout the covid-19 vaccines, although suspicion is decreasing. thank goodness. what will happen is any number o' government healthcare and educational organizations will require employees to be vaccinated to continue working. am also guessing students at state funded schools will face inconsistent vaccine mandates (e.g. state university school of medicine.) military personnel will also be required to vaccinate... eventually. this is one area where the new biden administration may change policy regarding required vaccinations. full fda approval (not emergency) is the announced prerequisite for mandatory military vaccinations. full fda approval takes a long time and "long" is usual measured in years. however, am suspecting VA hospitals and healthcare facilities is gonna be one o' the initial distribution points for the new covid-19 vaccines and is ez to predict at least a few civilian employees o' the VA will not accept the demand to vaccinate. not actual relevant, but am not personal in favor o' forced vaccinations. the US has an ugly history when it comes to forced medical procedures, particular where those being forced is part o' a political marginalized group. is no reason to believe the current covid-19 vaccines will be anything other than safe and we will be at front o' the que to receive such as soon as is an option. nevertheless, am not believing the State should force vaccinations for covid-19... while at the same time we will continue to seethe at those ignorant granola moms who read on the internet that vaccines cause autism so they avoid having their child vaccinated for measles. give people a choice and is predictable more than a few will chose poorly. am not seeing as inconsistent that we fight for a right to choose while we simultaneous rebuke those who chose wrong. HA! Good Fun!

am agreeing complete. pure transactional and a bit myopic at that. mcconnell got a huge number o' judges installed--lifetime appointments. he also saw trump galvanize the blue collar and white voters who had abandoned republicans a few years earlier and voted for obama. mitch criticism o' harry reid and the democrats for their lack o' integrity were as hollow as were the reasoning for delaying merrick garland confirmation. nothing but transactional concerns from mitch. @Pidesco gonna disagree. mitt stand on impeachment and his marching with blm protesters cost him considerable support at home and with republicans 'cross the nation. recall how medicine dan reacted when we mentioned he-who-shall-not-be-named (mitt romney) earlier in this thread? mitt were marginalized w/i the party to a significant degree which undercut his efforts to author legislation and fundraise. mitt did himself no practical favors and he hurt himself more than a little by standing against trump. romney, as we has been told many times by Constitutional scholars over the years, appeared more concerned with his legacy and reputation than immediate transactional gains. romney behaved as we woulda' expected senators to behave and as we were told by hamilton the founders believed they would. however, am wondering if mitt woulda' shown so much integrity if he hadn't just won his own reelection and were not needing face the specter o' a primary 'gainst a trump supported candidate in the near future. HA! Good Fun!

personal integrity and an unsullied conscience? "Were I to ignore the evidence that has has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience." HA! Good Fun!

we disagree. william barr and trump has made a very dangerous fringe theory o' Presidential authority mainstream. trump refused cooperation with any and all Congressional oversight and the doj, 'ccording to barr, cannot stop the President. as such, impeachment is the ONLY meaningful option for Congress. had to impeach. precedent woulda' been devastating if the house failed to impeach. and keep in mind that your observations 'bout the inevitability o' a failed conviction is predicated on the absence o' testimony and documents which woulda' been available if only a couple more senators had agreed such were warranted. trump is a lousy witness. look up a couple o' his depositions from past lawsuits. a parade o' damning witnesses, supported by documentary evidence and then trump predictable imploding woulda' made conviction a real possibility even if it were not a certainty. 'course again, the norm o' having a President comply with impeachment investigations were erased. impeachment were s'posed to be different. as for head of state stuff, is quaint how a few people believe legal and dictionary definitions is infinite elastic and may be stretched and molded to support any argument. oh sure, lack o' a particular nation having an office which could fit the requirements o' a head o' state shouldn't prevent an individual from nevertheless imagining such into existence. be creative. HA! Good Fun!