The Planned Parenthood video...

[D1B]

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".

[JoltinJoe]

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".

I'm waiting to have a discussion with anyone who is willing to read the Planned Parenthood expert report.

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

[JoltinJoe]

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.

[JoltinJoe]

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.

[JoltinJoe]

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.

[kalm]

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.

Have any links to either of these stories? Or do you expect us to just take your word for it?

[JoltinJoe]

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.

Have any links to either of these stories? Or do you expect us to just take your word for it?

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.

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/

[kalm]

Just as I thought.

[JoltinJoe]

Meanwhile, it turns out Judge Orrick has a rather enormous conflict of interest.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wif ... supporter/

[JoltinJoe]

Meanwhile, it turns out Judge Orrick has a rather enormous conflict of interest.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03/wif ... supporter/

[JoltinJoe]

Just as I thought.

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?

[kalm]

Just as I thought.

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?

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.

[JoltinJoe]

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?

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.

[kalm]

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.

Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!

Technical grounds are the truth!

[JoltinJoe]

Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!

Technical grounds are the truth!

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.

[Ibanez]

Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!

Technical grounds are the truth!

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.

How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?

[JoltinJoe]

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.

How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?

Uh, two?

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.

[GannonFan]

How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?

Uh, two?

Maybe the question you should ask is why am I always right about the outcomes of the legal proceedings we discuss?

Hey, I did a patent law course while doing my undergrad. Plus I watch "Major Crimes" frequently.

[kalm]

Hey Joe...OJ was innocent!

Technical grounds are the truth!

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.

Wait! So you're saying PP manipulates the system and uses PR to their advantage????

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).

[JoltinJoe]

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.

Bullshit. I am spot on all the time. Not only in the present sense, but in the predictive sense.

[GannonFan]

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.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm honestly as neutral as they come with the abortion debate but your arguments tend push me away from your side.

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.

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.

[Ibanez]

How many people on this board that you routinely look down upon have 1 day of legal training?

Uh, two?

Maybe the question you should ask is why am I always right about the outcomes of the legal proceedings we discuss?

Probably because you're a lawyer. Just like, 93, CID and I are always right about issues in the government & military.

Spoiler: show

Although, with my departure from the MIC and Gov't as a whole, I'll have to rely on my past experiences.

I don't care about Planned Parenthood. In the catalog of issues concerning me and my life, Planned Parenthood is far down the list. These are all politically motivated witch hunts, wasting time and money that could be better spent on real issues. Why does PP exist? Maybe we should work on the the causes that precede a woman's arrival at a clinic making, what's normally, an incredibly difficult decision even more difficult.

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.

[JoltinJoe]

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.

Thanks.

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

[HI54UNI]

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.

Thanks.

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 you're going to use the word I think it's in the TOS that you have to post this.