Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#326

Post by bob » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:04 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter 6: My Book on the Calling of the First Article V Convention of the States:
“We’re fucked”. Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, sat back in her arm chair. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer sitting to her right lowered his head and sighed. Mitch McConnell, on her left, sat stoned-faced and Paul Ryan looked back and forth at their attorneys, Peter Maier and William Pittard.

* * *

Pelosi spoke up. “That [Garland] would empanel a grand jury and appoint Blair Sibley as a special prosecutor to investigate Barack’s identity and the role of Karl Rove and the Republican Party in the D.C. Madam case.”
More :yankyank: -- but thankfully none of the creeper stuff.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#327

Post by bob » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:14 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter 7: My Book on the Calling of the First Article V Convention of the States:
“Good evening, we are pleased to present an exclusive, live interview with the individual who has created a firestorm in the United States, Montgomery Blair Sibley” said Graham Ledger of One America News Network. OAN had a reputation for fair reporting of the news. Media professor Marty Kaplan praised the network for its focus on what he viewed as impartial news reporting, writing in The Huffington Post that, “Ten minutes of OAN tells me eight stories; 10 minutes of Fox or MSNBC tells me one story, to make me mad.” It was no surprise that Blair chose OAN for his exclusive interview for it is known as one of the most fair news outlets, serving up a daily diet of ad-free, non-ideological, nonstop news — without smirking, snarky anchors or much fanfare.”
Sooooo much :yankyank: . Perhaps of note:
“After skipping through the University of Miami, Florida and law school at Albany Law School in New York, Blair went to work at the Rochester, New York District Attorney’s office where he learned the ropes of criminal law prosecution starting with traffic infractions and ending with homicides, child abuse and economic crimes. At the end of five years and having hit the ceiling at the District Attorney’s office, Blair began to look for other challenges. A chance comment at a church social by the mother of his first girlfriend Sarah Zartman changed his life.

Mrs. Zartman at the time was the chairwoman of the Republican Party for Rochester and had a problem. There was no one who wanted to run in the fall 1987 election against the Democratic incumbent Howard Relin – Blair’s soon-to-be ex-boss. Though there was little chance of success, the election would be an excellent opportunity to introduce Blair to the Rochester electorate as a nice guy, homegrown candidate and would pave the way for the following year’s election to the State Senate, where a seat was to be vacated and would be up for grabs.”

“The plan was simple – knowing that Blair was to lose, run a ‘nice guy’ campaign to lay the foundation for subsequent contests that could be won. The last thing anyone wanted was a campaign that left a bad taste in the voter’s mouths as first impressions are everlasting.”

“However, that was not to be. Blair’s former boss and opponent in the race for District Attorney, Howard Relin, had authored a memorandum to his 40 assistant district attorneys directing them to remove ‘women and minorities’ from the jury whenever the defendant was of African descent. This appalling policy of Mr. Relin’s office was not only morally repugnant, it had been unconstitutional since 1965 when the Supreme Court held in Swain v. Alabama, that: a ‘State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause.’ After Blair publicly raised this issue in the campaign, no present or former assistant district attorneys would collaborate the existence of Relin’s secret jury selection memo. Blair was branded as using unfair campaign tactics and lost the election by the largest margin in the history of Rochester, New York, elections.”

“However, three days after the election, the highest court in New York, in the case of People v. Knight, reversed a murder conviction obtained by Relin’s office stating: ‘We find that defendant articulated facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner, thereby shifting the burden to the prosecutor to provide neutral explanations for his peremptory challenges.’ Subsequently, Relin’s Jury selection memo was introduced and its authenticity confirmed resulting in a new trial for Mr. Knight. Blair was, post-election, vindicated.”

“However, Blair having had enough of small-town politics, had moved his family after the election to Miami to start a new law practice where he found work with an old Rochester friend, Peter Yanowitch. Shortly thereafter, Blair was introduced by his friend Hector Botero to eight Colombian companies that collectively had seven million dollars ($7,000,000) in wire transfers seized by the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York and needed New York counsel.”

“To make a long story short, Blair was retained by the eight companies and ultimately took the largest civil forfeiture case tried to trial in July 1992. The eight week trial in Brooklyn was notable as: (i) the John Gotti and a Chinese Tong trials were being held on the same floor of the Courthouse and (ii) three of the attorneys representing other claimants in the civil forfeiture trial ultimately went to prison for their actions in representing their clients – the Cali cartel – during the trial.”
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#328

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:31 pm

Sibley forgets to mention that he lost that 1992 case.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 37/576651/

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#329

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:25 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:31 pm
Sibley forgets to mention that he lost that 1992 case.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 37/576651/
:smokeears: How dare you! :smokeears: No birther ever lost a case! :smokeears: Never!! :smokeears:

They were stolen by lying government lawyers, corrupt judges, negligent congressmen, uncaring law enforcement, Hillary Clinton's email server and Benghazi. And don't you forget it.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#330

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:37 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:25 pm
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:31 pm
Sibley forgets to mention that he lost that 1992 case.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 37/576651/
:smokeears: How dare you! :smokeears: No birther ever lost a case! :smokeears: Never!! :smokeears:

They were stolen by lying government lawyers, corrupt judges, negligent congressmen, uncaring law enforcement, Hillary Clinton's email server and Benghazi. And don't you forget it.
You forgot the Lizard People.
Hillary had an e-mail server in 1992?

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9253
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#331

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:09 am

bob wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:09 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:57 pm
Does any of that even make any sense? i know Sibley, so largely rhetorical.
Sibley is imagining that Garland somehow got involved with his paper throwing, even though Garland wasn't on the D.C. Cir. panel that tossed Sibley's suit.

* * *

In other news: Remember when Sibley got fired from CarMax (for alleged "whistleblowing"), he was award around $500 in back pay, and sued anyway? Talk about snatching victory: a federal district court sanctioned Sibley $21,385 for his frivolous litigation.
OMG ty for the laughs! Hadn't looked at this since last year, the way he describes the 7500 Spams he sent to CarMax emails is precious. And the $21,385 at the end was like a cherry on top. Just fabulous!

You know it's going to be great fun when it BEGINS with (and kudos to the judge for providing the cite: :lol:
ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Unfortunately, Defendant, Montgomery B. Sibley ("Sibley"), has not learned from his history of sanctions and suspensions, and thus he is doomed to repeat it here. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Renewed Application for Fees and Costs [ECF No. 72] will be granted in part for the fees associated with trial and denied in part for the fees associated with the appeal. Defendant's Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Roger W. Titus [ECF No. 76] will also be denied.

George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, in The Life of Reason or the Phases of Human Progress, 284 (Charles Scribner's Sons 1905).
Avatar Photo: Current Logo for Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#332

Post by bob » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:16 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter 8: My Book on the Calling of the First Article V Convention of the States:
Judge Garland’s courtroom was packed and he had arranged for camera’s to carry the arguments live through C-SPAN to the nation.
Mostly just more ConCon* cosplay. :yawn:

But not without:
“Mr. Sibley, are you wearing a kilt?”

“Yes your honor, the Clan Blair tartan which seemed appropriate given the importance of today’s proceedings. And if females may wear pants in your courtroom, then surely men can wear un-bifurcated, below the waist garments.” Realizing he had no answer to that statement, Judge Garland just smiled and motioned Blair to proceed.
:brickwallsmall:

And:
“Great. I will get Judge Garland to approve your salary at the same rate you are getting paid now. However, we also need to define the parameters of this working relationship so we are not later upset by failed expectations.”

Rachel smiled, folded her hands before her on the table and leaned in towards Blair. “Yes, well as to your second question about an intimate relationship between us, I will keep you to your promise to allow me to take the initiative. As we are going to be working together closely and the time until the ConProAm adjourns is probably less than six months, I will not be taking the initiative any time before then. Do I make myself clear?”

Blair smiled back at her. “Yes, Rachel. ‘Yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘No’ means ‘no’. I got it and am glad we have cleared the air in that regard. So let’s move on to business. I want this professional relationship to be one where you act as my counsel on all things, legal and otherwise. So here is the first question. I need to let the Press know something, so I propose to tell them that you have accepted my offer to act as Deputy, that we will be meeting the remainder of this week to get organized and will hold a Press Conference next Monday to explain the process we have adopted and answer any questions we can. Your thoughts?”

* * *

Rachel got up and left leaving Blair alone with his thoughts which primarily focused on Rachel. “Why are men such prisoners to their biological appetites?”, Blair wondered. “Truly, all men would behave like Harvey Weinstein; that is pigs, if social mores didn’t dictate otherwise. It was cliché to characterize men as ‘cavemen’ dragging women back to their caves but there was some truth in that image.”
At least Sibley's fantasies acknowledge consent.


* Excuse me: ConProAm (Convention to Propose Amendments, in Sibley's fantasy nomenclature).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#333

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:49 pm

Must be nice having a rich fantasy life where he actually wins cases and has the respect of his peers and the courts.... and everyone who comes in contact with him doesn't think he a raving sleazy loon.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#334

Post by Suranis » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:42 am

I'm just waiting for him to reveal how, when the rear rotor failed in a helicopter, Sibley climbed out and used his massive wang as an improv propeller to get it landed.

Oh and that woman he keeps talking about? In real life she must have knocked out 2 of his teeth AND laughed in his face.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#335

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:08 am

At least one can honestly say that the content of Sibley's fantasies and his fiction style are of the same standard as his legal writing.

That's assuming it's ok to compare :sick: :puker: and :rolleye: :shit:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#336

Post by bob » Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:56 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter 9:
"I propose we identify the areas to be addressed and then divide up those areas between us. As the Chairs of the ConProAm, we have a lot of discretion in launching this convention and I am keen that we do a professional job so that the end results are seen as legitimate."
Just lots of :yawn: :yankyank: cosplay.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#337

Post by bob » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:02 pm

Sibley's blog:
Chapter 10 The Press Conference
:
Mr. Sibley, do think a disbarred attorney should be Chairing this ConProAm? I refer of course to your disbarment by the Florida, New York, Washington, D.C. and 11 federal courts in 2008.”

“Ms. Witt, first, let me say I was never disbarred, but instead only suspended by Florida for three years in 2008 which the other bars, including the U.S. Supreme Court, all rubber stamped. You also omitted that the basis of the suspension was for an allegation that I failed to pay child support -- nothing to do with my fitness as an attorney. Moreover, you failed to mention that the 2008 suspension was for allegedly not paying child support in 2002. In your rush for a titillating sound bite, you failed to connect the dots between that suspension -- without an adversarial hearing mind you -- with my representation of Jeane Palfrey, known as the D.C. Madam and the 13 subpoenas that I had issued on the intelligence agencies and the White House in her defense in 2008. But ignore that appalling exercise of judicial power to remove me from the judicial playing field, let me answer your question directly.” Blair stopped and stepped down from the podium, taking the microphone with him and walked up to Ms. Witt stopping a few feet from her.

* * *

Closing the door to their office, Rachel said, “That went well, I thought. Alex Witt looked like she was going to faint when you walked towards her. I wasn’t sure what you were going to do.”

“Perhaps that was too much, but I found when I was in jail that a little physical intimidation commands respect. When the Press sits back barricaded behind the wall between reporter and subject, they are like a pack of dogs attacking a carcass. I just wanted to let them know I was alive and can bite back.”

“You were in jail?” Rachel said, intrigued.

“Yes, but only for 78 days.[*] Let’s just say a judge and I had a disagreement that took a while to work out. It was an interesting chapter of my life. Every attorney ought to spend a week in jail before they are allowed to practice. Maybe I will suggest that as an amendment” Blair said laughing.

“You certainly are an interesting fellow,” Rachel said, her eyes lingering on Blair a little bit longer professionally necessary as a smile lit up her face.
:shock: :sick: :roll:

* For failing to pay child support.


Bonus:
Of course the letter will be posted on our website, www.conproam.us.
Bless his heart, Sibley actually bought that domain.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#338

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:39 pm

Ya missed sum wurdz, bob. I've added them in.
bob wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:02 pm
Sibley's blog:
Chapter 10 The Press Conference
:
“You certainly are an interesting fellow,” Rachel said, her eyes lingering on Blair a little bit longer professionally necessary as a sickly smile lit up her horrified face as she desperately tried to prevent her eyes looking down at the steady shower of dandruff falling from Blair's grubby kilt onto his shit-brown brogues.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#339

Post by bob » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:48 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter 11 -- SENSUS:
Recognizing that the World is getting increasingly complex and that the 19th Century governance mechanisms currently in use were completely outdated and inadequate, the Collective Governance Program, wistfully named “Sensus” -- short for ‘Sense of the U.S.” and implying ‘common sense’ -- took the logical first step of identifying lawful citizens of the United States and their individual States and Counties and then issuing electronic identities to these lawful Citizens.
Totally not dystopian at all. :roll:

But at least it is just bad speculative fiction, and not bad slash fiction.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#340

Post by bob » Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:31 pm

Sibley's blog:
Chapter Twelve -- Convening the Convention
:
“By virtue of the authority vested in me by Article V of the United States Constitution and the Order of Judge Garland of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, I, Montgomery Blair Sibley, now call to Order this, the First Convention to Propose Amendment to the United States Constitution. The first order of business will be the qualification of each State’s delegation and identification of its speaking delegate.”

* * *

“The second order of business is choosing a Chair for the Convention. I open the floor for nominations and recognize the speaking delegate from New York, Mark Nunn.”

“The Empire State is pleased to nominate our present Chair pro tem and native son, Montgomery Blair Sibley, to Chair this Convention.”

“Thank you, Mr. Nunn. Is there a second? Yes, the Chair recognizes the speaking delegate from Florida, Lisa Macci.”

"Thank you. The Sunshine State would second the nomination of Montgomery Blair Sibley, its former resident of the Sunshine State and graduate of the University with the finest Football program in the Nation, the University of Miami Hurricanes.” A light-hearted chorus of objections arose to her description of the Miami Hurricanes.
:yankyank:

Oh:
Lacking any further business, this meeting is adjourned until November 15, 2017, to take up the Committee reports and any other business that may come before the Committee.
Sibley's isn't writing* speculative fiction, but rather an alternative history.


* Apologies to all actual writers.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#341

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Oh, good. Mary Sue constitutional revision fan fiction.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#342

Post by bob » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:31 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter Thirteen -- The Proposals to Amend the Constitution:
The Committees formed by suggestion of and mediated by Sensus worked with startling efficiency. Thirty days after being delegated the task; the Committees had come up with a number of proposed amendments to the Constitution. . . .

* An Amendment to the Constitution shall read: “No person shall be denied standing to privately prosecute a public right for at least declaratory or injunctive relief, even if he or she has not incurred, or does not expect, personal injury resulting from the failure to grant such relief.”

Committee Comment: A judicial-created barrier to access to Court known as “standing” is eliminated by this Amendment thus allowing grievances to be aired by any Citizen in a judicial forum.

* An Amendment to the Constitution shall read: “Every federal judicial officer will sit for a retention election every four years. Those judicial officers deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the votes casts will be removed from office and disqualified from future service as a judicial officer.”

Committee Comment: As Senator Ted Cruz has noted: “The Framers underestimated the judicial officers’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it. It was clear even before the end of the founding era that the threat of impeachment was, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, ‘not even a scarecrow’ to the judicial officers. Today, the remedy of impeachment — the only one provided under our Constitution to cure judicial tyranny — is still no remedy at all.” Accordingly, a direct check on judicial officers is necessary.
Even in his fantasies, Sibley has scores to settle.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#343

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:20 pm

Certainly does seem to have an axe to grind, who'd a thunk it???? :sarcasm: The true fantasy here is thinking they could get delegates together from the 50 states, who could one stay on track long enough to even get a lunch order together, and two could come up with anything they could all even remotely agree on/with, and then turn it around and sell it to their states and respective citizens. That is the true fantasy here.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#344

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:03 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:31 pm
Even in his fantasies, Sibley has scores to settle.
Too many nutters (birthers and others) think that the most important function of the legal system is as a venue for their personal feuds and arguments and that being told "that's not an argument for this court's attention" is treasonous corruption.

Part of thd motivation appears to be a failure to understand that the lack of interest by other people and the news mefia in their appalling lies and unpleasant opinions does not and should not give them an automatic right to use the courts as an alternative pulpit.

That it's a score-settling fantasy in Sibley's mind is highlighted by his proposal that any judge who loses a re-election be automatically and irrevocably disqualified for life. That's clearly him thinking "How can I twist the knife? How can I ruin someone who has refused my demands?"

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#345

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:51 am

Just as an aside, being familiar with a state where judges stand for retention every four years, the likelihood of a judge being removed is ranking around slim to none. It happens, but so very very seldom that it is actually news when it happens. I can't imagine the Federal version would be any better.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#346

Post by bob » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:24 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:51 am
I can't imagine the Federal version would be any better.
I respectfully dissent.

Sibley's :yankyank: includes all federal judges. Including SCOTUS. I could easily see a year where a Scalia or RBG gets booted. I think Sibley's fantasy would lead to a SCOTUS that swings wildly and regularly, creating less certainty in the law.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#347

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:32 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:24 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:51 am
I can't imagine the Federal version would be any better.
I respectfully dissent.

Sibley's :yankyank: includes all federal judges. Including SCOTUS. I could easily see a year where a Scalia or RBG gets booted. I think Sibley's fantasy would lead to a SCOTUS that swings wildly and regularly, creating less certainty in the law.
I can see your point on that one.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26667
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#348

Post by bob » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:55 pm

Sibley's blog: Chapter Fourteen:
The Committee of the Whole, sensing the need to finish before Christmas finally finished their debates, lobbying and wood-shedding and was ready to vote. . . .

It was then with real relief that Blair took the podium for the last time. . . .

Rachel called from around the corner. “Come see the view from here”, she said.

As Blair rounded the corner he saw Rachel unbuttoning the buttons on her blouse.

“You always said, ‘Women need a reason, Men need a place.’ Well, now that our professional relationship is at an end, I have a reason and we have a fitting place, don’t you think?”
:sick:
The End
:pray:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6975
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#349

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:17 pm

:sick: :panic: :eek2: :? :oops: :nope: :pigsfly: :dazed: :sick:

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”