The Planned Parenthood video...
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Nice to see Joltin Joe still getting his ass handed to him. Lmffao!!
Joltin Joe- cs.com's biggest liar.
He must be running out of "expert friends".
Joltin Joe- cs.com's biggest liar.
He must be running out of "expert friends".
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
I'm waiting to have a discussion with anyone who is willing to read the Planned Parenthood expert report.D1B wrote:Nice to see Joltin Joe still getting his ass handed to him. Lmffao!!
Joltin Joe- cs.com's biggest liar.
He must be running out of "expert friends".
The fact that no one wants to have that discussion is proof that I am right about how the media and Planned Parenthood have distorted the contents of that report. If I am lying about how the report is being distorted, I'm sure one of the enlightened ones here would have shown that already.
I'm not sure how I got my "ass handed to" me when no one has even tried to challenge what I said.
I asked one question and won the thread. This place is easy.
/thread
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Half of the Houston indictment dismissed today.
The remaining charge will be dismissed after a hearing on July 26.
I know you guys are wondering if I ever get tired of being right all the time.
The remaining charge will be dismissed after a hearing on July 26.
I know you guys are wondering if I ever get tired of being right all the time.
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Update: Felony charges brought by the Houston DA against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt have now been dismissed.
These indictments, which were splashed across front pages of the MSM, have now been dismissed in their entirety. As I correctly predicted.
Post your accolades below. Thank you.
These indictments, which were splashed across front pages of the MSM, have now been dismissed in their entirety. As I correctly predicted.
Post your accolades below. Thank you.
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Further update regarding the federal case in San Francisco in which the court issued an illegal prior restraint on free speech: the Center for Medical Progress has moved for summary judgment, supported by 11 amicus briefs -- including one from my friend's organization, and another by 11 constitutional scholars arguing that CMP's activities are protected First Amendment speech.
My friend's organization joined with other parties in serving and filling an expert report that establishes that none of the CMP videos have been altered or deceptively edited, and that the full versions posted on youtube are complete and unaltered. This report dissects the speculative report served by Planned Parenthood.
My friend's organization joined with other parties in serving and filling an expert report that establishes that none of the CMP videos have been altered or deceptively edited, and that the full versions posted on youtube are complete and unaltered. This report dissects the speculative report served by Planned Parenthood.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59476
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Have any links to either of these stories? Or do you expect us to just take your word for it?JoltinJoe wrote:Further update regarding the federal case in San Francisco in which the court issued an illegal prior restraint on free speech: the Center for Medical Progress has moved for summary judgment, supported by 11 amicus briefs -- including one from my friend's organization, and another by 11 constitutional scholars arguing that CMP's activities are protected First Amendment speech.
My friend's organization joined with other parties in serving and filling an expert report that establishes that none of the CMP videos have been altered or deceptively edited, and that the full versions posted on youtube are complete and unaltered. This report dissects the speculative report served by Planned Parenthood.
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Unfortunately, the only links you will find about these stories is from websites that you would consider "biased." That's because the MSM media is essentially in the bag for Planned Parenthood.kalm wrote:Have any links to either of these stories? Or do you expect us to just take your word for it?JoltinJoe wrote:Further update regarding the federal case in San Francisco in which the court issued an illegal prior restraint on free speech: the Center for Medical Progress has moved for summary judgment, supported by 11 amicus briefs -- including one from my friend's organization, and another by 11 constitutional scholars arguing that CMP's activities are protected First Amendment speech.
My friend's organization joined with other parties in serving and filling an expert report that establishes that none of the CMP videos have been altered or deceptively edited, and that the full versions posted on youtube are complete and unaltered. This report dissects the speculative report served by Planned Parenthood.
For example, the NY Times actually ran a story about the felony charges being dropped in Houston, but approached it from the angle that the dismissal was based on a technicality. And technically that was true. Faced with dismissal motions that raised numerous troubling issues of conflict of interest, unconstitutional process, illegal (and confirmed/admitted) ex parte communication between the DA's office and Planned Parenthood DURING the grand jury investigation -- the Houston DA fell on her sword and cited a technical, procedural issue in "voluntarily" dismissing the felony charge. The dismissal mooted the court's need to evaluate other, far more problematic misconduct on the DA's part (and the wholly improper legal instructions provided to the grand jurors).
If the DA had not voluntarily dismissed the case, her office would have been castigated by the court.
As for the San Francisco case -- PP intentionally files in San Francisco because of the liberal judiciary in that city is very pro PP. PP knows that it cannot actually win the case that it filed in July 2015 and that any judgment entered in its favor is likely to be struck down by the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court. Prior restraints are unconstitutional. Even the least committed first-year law students know that.
PP's goal is to create a firestorm, and then quietly move on to its next abuse of the judicial process. They are fascist monsters.
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/14/davi ... arenthood/
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/26/davi ... ainst-him/
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Meanwhile, it turns out Judge Orrick has a rather enormous conflict of interest.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wif ... supporter/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wif ... supporter/
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Meanwhile, it turns out Judge Orrick has a rather enormous conflict of interest.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wif ... supporter/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wif ... supporter/
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
You mean you don't think the indictment has been dismissed?kalm wrote:Just as I thought.
Or that a motion to dismiss has been filed?
How did you graduate from college?
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59476
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
So on the one hand you cite the fallibility of the court system (9th circuit and SCOTUS) but when something gets dismissed that's the end of the story?JoltinJoe wrote:You mean you don't think the indictment has been dismissed?kalm wrote:Just as I thought.
Or that a motion to dismiss has been filed?
How did you graduate from college?
Seriously Joe, there's no mystery as to how you graduated from law school. No mystery at all.
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
kalm wrote:So on the one hand you cite the fallibility of the court system (9th circuit and SCOTUS) but when something gets dismissed that's the end of the story?JoltinJoe wrote:
You mean you don't think the indictment has been dismissed?
Or that a motion to dismiss has been filed?
How did you graduate from college?
Seriously Joe, there's no mystery as to how you graduated from law school. No mystery at all.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59476
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!JoltinJoe wrote:kalm wrote:
So on the one hand you cite the fallibility of the court system (9th circuit and SCOTUS) but when something gets dismissed that's the end of the story?
Seriously Joe, there's no mystery as to how you graduated from law school. No mystery at all.
Technical grounds are the truth!
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
I don't mean to insult the intelligence of others who no doubt got my point but --kalm wrote:Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!JoltinJoe wrote:
Technical grounds are the truth!
My point was that it is easy enough for PP to find a sympathetic public figure who will do its dirty work for it, so PP gets the desired headline (i.e., a DA in Houston, a liberal federal judge in San Francisco whose wife is a PP advocate). But others in the judicial system eventually must review those decisions.
PP's scheme is to find their sympathetic public figure, exploit them and their act in order to grab the first headline, and then move along. The later aspects of the story never get the bang as the first headline does.
Do you seriously believe that a US Circuit Court, or the Supreme Court, is going to establish a precedent in favor of a prior restraint? The ultimate outcome of the San Fran case was clear to anyone with legal training from day one.
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?JoltinJoe wrote:I don't mean to insult the intelligence of others who no doubt got my point but --kalm wrote:
Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!
Technical grounds are the truth!
My point was that it is easy enough for PP to find a sympathetic public figure who will do its dirty work for it, so PP gets the desired headline (i.e., a DA in Houston, a liberal federal judge in San Francisco whose wife is a PP advocate). But others in the judicial system eventually must review those decisions.
PP's scheme is to find their sympathetic public figure, exploit them and their act in order to grab the first headline, and then move along. The later aspects of the story never get the bang as the first headline does.
Do you seriously believe that a US Circuit Court, or the Supreme Court, is going to establish a precedent in favor of a prior restraint? The ultimate outcome of the San Fran case was clear to anyone with legal training from day one.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Uh, two?Ibanez wrote:How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?JoltinJoe wrote:
I don't mean to insult the intelligence of others who no doubt got my point but --
My point was that it is easy enough for PP to find a sympathetic public figure who will do its dirty work for it, so PP gets the desired headline (i.e., a DA in Houston, a liberal federal judge in San Francisco whose wife is a PP advocate). But others in the judicial system eventually must review those decisions.
PP's scheme is to find their sympathetic public figure, exploit them and their act in order to grab the first headline, and then move along. The later aspects of the story never get the bang as the first headline does.
Do you seriously believe that a US Circuit Court, or the Supreme Court, is going to establish a precedent in favor of a prior restraint? The ultimate outcome of the San Fran case was clear to anyone with legal training from day one.
Maybe the question you should ask is why am I always right about the outcomes of the legal proceedings we discuss? I took a lot of heat for saying the Houston DA's indictments would be throw out. How come no one now will man up and admit that I was right?
The first time the DA had to defend her felony indictments in court, she ran away like a chicken.
Last edited by JoltinJoe on Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18065
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Hey, I did a patent law course while doing my undergrad. Plus I watch "Major Crimes" frequently.JoltinJoe wrote:Uh, two?Ibanez wrote:
How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?
Maybe the question you should ask is why am I always right about the outcomes of the legal proceedings we discuss?
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59476
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Wait! So you're saying PP manipulates the system and uses PR to their advantage????JoltinJoe wrote:I don't mean to insult the intelligence of others who no doubt got my point but --kalm wrote:
Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!
Technical grounds are the truth!
My point was that it is easy enough for PP to find a sympathetic public figure who will do its dirty work for it, so PP gets the desired headline (i.e., a DA in Houston, a liberal federal judge in San Francisco whose wife is a PP advocate). But others in the judicial system eventually must review those decisions.
PP's scheme is to find their sympathetic public figure, exploit them and their act in order to grab the first headline, and then move along. The later aspects of the story never get the bang as the first headline does.
Do you seriously believe that a US Circuit Court, or the Supreme Court, is going to establish a precedent in favor of a prior restraint? The ultimate outcome of the San Fran case was clear to anyone with legal training from day one.
Shut the front door!!!
Joe, you could be spot on here. But you've proven to not be a very reliable source at times which is why I asked for links. I'm honestly as neutral as they come with the abortion debate but your arguments tend push me away from your side.
I don't think you're intentionally dishonest or dumb. Quite the opposite in most regards. But you have an obvious blind spot here.
(Playfully lobs another across the net for Joe to run down).
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Bullshit. I am spot on all the time. Not only in the present sense, but in the predictive sense.kalm wrote: Joe, you could be spot on here. But you've proven to not be a very reliable source at times which is why I asked for links.
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18065
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Gotta go with Joe on this one - he said early on that the charges against the people making the video would be thrown out and they were (even NPR reported this last week or so - do they not get NPR in the eastern parts of Washington state?). Hard to say he was anything but correct in predicting this.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
For example, you get your panties ruffled when I call out the Houston DA for an OBVIOUS political move, and being in the bag of PP. But then my prediction of what will happen plays out, and you won't even consider the fact that I was right all along.kalm wrote: I'm honestly as neutral as they come with the abortion debate but your arguments tend push me away from your side.
The Houston DA's interpretation of the statute at issue regarding use of a fake ID intentionally blurred a distinction between tricking someone, and using the ID for fraudulent purposes. The statute obviously targets financial crimes, identity theft, and other frauds in a financial sense. The instruction that the DA gave to the grand jury would have resulted in felony charges against -- and potentially 20 years of jail time for --every 18-year-old who uses a fake ID to trick a bartender into serving them.
Last edited by JoltinJoe on Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Probably because you're a lawyer. Just like, 93, CID and I are always right about issues in the government & military.JoltinJoe wrote:Uh, two?Ibanez wrote:
How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?
Maybe the question you should ask is why am I always right about the outcomes of the legal proceedings we discuss?
- Spoiler: show
It goes both ways. We should take care of those within our society that need help (you know, like Christians) but also educate those more likely to use services like PP to be smart about sex and to not procreate - especially if you are having trouble feeding and clothing yourself.
I know, it's all a pipe dream. Eutopian, if you will.
I'm sure there are several trigger warnings in there.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
Thanks.GannonFan wrote:Gotta go with Joe on this one - he said early on that the charges against the people making the video would be thrown out and they were (even NPR reported this last week or so - do they not get NPR in the eastern parts of Washington state?). Hard to say he was anything but correct in predicting this.
BTW, the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit on the legality of the district court's prior restraint is scheduled for October. It is inconceivable to me that the restraint will be upheld. The leading case involving prior restraints is a Supreme Court case involving the publication of The Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post and NY Times. The government sought a restraint prohibiting the publication of the Pentagon Papers, arguing that the information had been unlawfully obtained (true, it had been stolen) and endangered national security.
The court held that, notwithstanding the threat of injury to national security and that the information had been unlawfully, the First Amendment would not allow for the issuance of a prior restraint.
The appellants' reply brief can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... -16-16.pdf
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 12387
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
- I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
- A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
- Location: The Panther State
Re: The Planned Parenthood video...
If you're going to use the word I think it's in the TOS that you have to post this.JoltinJoe wrote:Thanks.GannonFan wrote:Gotta go with Joe on this one - he said early on that the charges against the people making the video would be thrown out and they were (even NPR reported this last week or so - do they not get NPR in the eastern parts of Washington state?). Hard to say he was anything but correct in predicting this.
BTW, the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit on the legality of the district court's prior restraint is scheduled for October. It is inconceivable to me that the restraint will be upheld. The leading case involving prior restraints is a Supreme Court case involving the publication of The Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post and NY Times. The government sought a restraint prohibiting the publication of the Pentagon Papers, arguing that the information had been unlawfully obtained (true, it had been stolen) and endangered national security.
The court held that, notwithstanding the threat of injury to national security and that the information had been unlawfully, the First Amendment would not allow for the issuance of a prior restraint.
The appellants' reply brief can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... -16-16.pdf
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.
Progressivism is cancer
All my posts are satire
Progressivism is cancer
All my posts are satire