CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#76

Post by TollandRCR » Sat May 28, 2016 11:08 am

Webster's article on "gruntle" is interesting. "Gruntle" is a 1920's back-formation from an old word.
Did You Know?

The verb "disgruntle," which has been around since 1682, means "to make ill-humored or discontented." The prefix dis- often means "to do the opposite of," so people might naturally assume that if there is a "disgruntle," there must have first been a "gruntle" with exactly the opposite meaning. But actually, "dis-" doesn’t always work that way - in some rare cases it functions instead as an intensifier. "Disgruntle" developed from this intensifying sense of dis- plus gruntle, an old word meaning "to grumble." In the 1920s, a writer humorously used "gruntle" to mean "to make happy" - in other words, as an antonym of "disgruntle." The use caught on. At first "gruntle" was used only in humorous ways, but people eventually began to use it seriously as well.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#77

Post by Foggy » Sat May 28, 2016 11:39 am

Of course, in modern usage, there are only two known applications of the word disgruntled:

disgruntled postal workers

disgruntled former employees

I reckon postal workers are disgruntled even before they're former postal workers. Most of the postal workers I know are pretty gruntled, tho ...
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

boots
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#78

Post by boots » Sat May 28, 2016 2:18 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:From my IANAL capacity, how can you sue someone in their private capacity for an act that ONLY the official public persona/officer could have done? I'm not quite seeing the logic/illogic there.
Exactly. And that's why it wouldn't work. Crap fake lawyering 101 is to think that by changing what you call something, you change the nature of it. It doesn't work that way.

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 3763
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#79

Post by Azastan » Sat May 28, 2016 3:37 pm

Foggy wrote:Of course, in modern usage, there are only two known applications of the word disgruntled:

disgruntled postal workers

disgruntled former employees

I reckon postal workers are disgruntled even before they're former postal workers. Most of the postal workers I know are pretty gruntled, tho ...
Not all postal employees are disgruntled before they become former postal employees.

We do, however, have our good days and bad days!

User avatar
phaseolus
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:17 pm
Location: Bay View, WI
Occupation: PLC Programmer

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#80

Post by phaseolus » Sun May 29, 2016 2:33 pm


User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#81

Post by Plutodog » Sun May 29, 2016 4:31 pm

18. Indeed, in February 2016, about two years later, Defendant OBAMA, acting in concert with Defendants HARRY and RORY REID made good on his threat against Plaintiff BUNDY and his sons and had the sons Ammon, Ryan, Dave and Mel Bundy, arrested and charged with criminal acts by and through his Justice Department, now under the auspices of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, for a peaceful but armed protest at a game reserve in Oregon again over the BLM’s illegal and unconstitutional acts in attempting to seize land and chattels of fellow ranchers.
19. The only one harmed at this Oregon protest was a protester who was without cause shot and killed by a federal agent. The sons of Plaintiff BUNDY nor any other protestor had harmed any federal agent.
Libelous morons. :fingerwag:
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12689
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#82

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun May 29, 2016 4:38 pm

GIL can't even get his lies straight, wasn't Finicum shot by OSP, the FBI's not involved?
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
Volkonski
Posts: 23490
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#83

Post by Volkonski » Sun May 29, 2016 4:39 pm

Plutodog wrote:
18. Indeed, in February 2016, about two years later, Defendant OBAMA, acting in concert with Defendants HARRY and RORY REID made good on his threat against Plaintiff BUNDY and his sons and had the sons Ammon, Ryan, Dave and Mel Bundy, arrested and charged with criminal acts by and through his Justice Department, now under the auspices of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, for a peaceful but armed protest at a game reserve in Oregon again over the BLM’s illegal and unconstitutional acts in attempting to seize land and chattels of fellow ranchers.
19. The only one harmed at this Oregon protest was a protester who was without cause shot and killed by a federal agent. The sons of Plaintiff BUNDY nor any other protestor had harmed any federal agent.
Libelous morons. :fingerwag:
:roll: It was a wildlife refuge not a game reserve. Finicum was shot by the Oregon State Police not by Federal agents. They can't even get basic details right.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12689
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#84

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun May 29, 2016 5:09 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Plutodog wrote:
18. Indeed, in February 2016, about two years later, Defendant OBAMA, acting in concert with Defendants HARRY and RORY REID made good on his threat against Plaintiff BUNDY and his sons and had the sons Ammon, Ryan, Dave and Mel Bundy, arrested and charged with criminal acts by and through his Justice Department, now under the auspices of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, for a peaceful but armed protest at a game reserve in Oregon again over the BLM’s illegal and unconstitutional acts in attempting to seize land and chattels of fellow ranchers.
19. The only one harmed at this Oregon protest was a protester who was without cause shot and killed by a federal agent. The sons of Plaintiff BUNDY nor any other protestor had harmed any federal agent.
Libelous morons. :fingerwag:
:roll: It was a wildlife refuge not a game reserve. Finicum was shot by the Oregon State Police not by Federal agents. They can't even get basic details LIES right.
FIFU
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
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#85

Post by Flatpointhigh » Sun May 29, 2016 7:08 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:GIL can't even get his lies straight, wasn't Finicum shot by OSP, the FBI's not involved?
saying the eff bee eye dun it, makes the legend secksyher

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#86

Post by HumbleScribe » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:49 pm

realist wrote:Thanks, bob...

At Jack's:
5-24-16 ECF 3 CLIVEN BUNDY v NAVARRO, et al. - Amended Complaint
OK, I do not understand how, starting at paragraph 47, the complaint continues,

". . .realleges and reincorporates facts set forth inparagraph 1 to 50, above."

The remainder of the complaint that addresses previous facts "above" all have wonky paragraph references that include and go beyond the "instant" paragraph number.

Seems like sloppy cutting and pasting to me. Back in the day when I prepared and issued financial statements with or without footnotes, there were three, count em, three reviews of everything after the report came back from typing. Then and only then did we release the financial statements to the client. I guess you could say that I am anal about these things! :o

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4335
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#87

Post by NMgirl » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:23 pm

TollandRCR wrote:Webster's article on "gruntle" is interesting. "Gruntle" is a 1920's back-formation from an old word.
Did You Know?

The verb "disgruntle," which has been around since 1682, means "to make ill-humored or discontented." The prefix dis- often means "to do the opposite of," so people might naturally assume that if there is a "disgruntle," there must have first been a "gruntle" with exactly the opposite meaning. But actually, "dis-" doesn’t always work that way - in some rare cases it functions instead as an intensifier. "Disgruntle" developed from this intensifying sense of dis- plus gruntle, an old word meaning "to grumble." In the 1920s, a writer humorously used "gruntle" to mean "to make happy" - in other words, as an antonym of "disgruntle." The use caught on. At first "gruntle" was used only in humorous ways, but people eventually began to use it seriously as well.
Probably the most famous use of "disgruntled" and "gruntled" comes from the incomparable P.G. Wodehouse:

“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” I love that sentence, as I love so many of P.G.'s sentences.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23490
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#88

Post by Volkonski » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:42 pm

HumbleScribe wrote:
realist wrote:Thanks, bob...

At Jack's:
5-24-16 ECF 3 CLIVEN BUNDY v NAVARRO, et al. - Amended Complaint
OK, I do not understand how, starting at paragraph 47, the complaint continues,

". . .realleges and reincorporates facts set forth inparagraph 1 to 50, above."

The remainder of the complaint that addresses previous facts "above" all have wonky paragraph references that include and go beyond the "instant" paragraph number.

Seems like sloppy cutting and pasting to me. Back in the day when I prepared and issued financial statements with or without footnotes, there were three, count em, three reviews of everything after the report came back from typing. Then and only then did we release the financial statements to the client. I guess you could say that I am anal about these things! :o
Now Cliven wants $90,000,000 in damages. :roll:
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#89

Post by HumbleScribe » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:55 pm

Volkonski wrote:
HumbleScribe wrote:
realist wrote:Thanks, bob...

At Jack's:
OK, I do not understand how, starting at paragraph 47, the complaint continues,

". . .realleges and reincorporates facts set forth inparagraph 1 to 50, above."

The remainder of the complaint that addresses previous facts "above" all have wonky paragraph references that include and go beyond the "instant" paragraph number.

Seems like sloppy cutting and pasting to me. Back in the day when I prepared and issued financial statements with or without footnotes, there were three, count em, three reviews of everything after the report came back from typing. Then and only then did we release the financial statements to the client. I guess you could say that I am anal about these things! :o
Now Cliven wants $90,000,000 in damages. :roll:
In addition, in the body of the complaint, Hansen refers to the judge as "GLOREA NAVARRO," yet in the header (or whatever the proper legal term is for complaints) he spells her name, "GLORIA."

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#90

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:08 pm

It's simply another excellent job by grossly inappropriate Larry Klayman. This time it looks as if he has his buddy Joel Hansen filing pretty much what Klayman wants without even proofing it. What a team of legal eagles! What a couple of klowns.

LeGargantua

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#91

Post by LeGargantua » Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:29 pm

A strange complaint. Just one remark: Herr Hitler was Austrian and not French. So his first name was "Adolf" and not "Adolph".

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 3763
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#92

Post by Azastan » Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:06 pm

HumbleScribe wrote: In addition, in the body of the complaint, Hansen refers to the judge as "GLOREA NAVARRO," yet in the header (or whatever the proper legal term is for complaints) he spells her name, "GLORIA."
Someone in the law office can't figure out the difference between 'Latino' and 'Latina', either.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#93

Post by SueDB » Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:17 pm

LeGargantua wrote:A strange complaint. Just one remark: Herr Hitler was Austrian and not French. So his first name was "Adolf" and not "Adolph".
He never spelled it with the ph. :shh:
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#94

Post by HumbleScribe » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:07 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:It's simply another excellent job bygrossly inappropriate Larry Klayman. This time it looks as if he has his buddy Joel Hansen filing pretty much what Klayman wants without even proofing it. What a team of legal eagles! What a couple of klowns.
Is this the Final Jeopardy! answer to the meaning of GIL?

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8432
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#95

Post by Northland10 » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:44 pm

HumbleScribe wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:It's simply another excellent job bygrossly inappropriate Larry Klayman. This time it looks as if he has his buddy Joel Hansen filing pretty much what Klayman wants without even proofing it. What a team of legal eagles! What a couple of klowns.
Is this the Final Jeopardy! answer to the meaning of GIL?
What is the Supreme Court of Ohio saying, "In doing so, the magistrate found on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children"?

In addition, GIL is faster to type than other names we might want to give Klayman.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8432
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#96

Post by Northland10 » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:55 pm

Northland10 wrote:
HumbleScribe wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:It's simply another excellent job bygrossly inappropriate Larry Klayman. This time it looks as if he has his buddy Joel Hansen filing pretty much what Klayman wants without even proofing it. What a team of legal eagles! What a couple of klowns.
Is this the Final Jeopardy! answer to the meaning of GIL?
What is the Supreme Court of Ohio saying, "In doing so, the magistrate found on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children"?

In addition, GIL is faster to type than other names we might want to give Klayman.
Wonkette has used:

Idiot bag of lawyer scrapings Larry Klayman...
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#97

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:14 pm

Wonkette's doesn't quite slip off the tongue in the same way. And our version is what a judicial officer actually said about the slime bucket.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8432
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#98

Post by Northland10 » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:19 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Wonkette's doesn't quite slip off the tongue in the same way. And our version is what a judicial officer actually said about the slime bucket.
Very true. I will continue to use GIL.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#99

Post by gupwalla » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:24 pm

SueDB wrote:
LeGargantua wrote:A strange complaint. Just one remark: Herr Hitler was Austrian and not French. So his first name was "Adolf" and not "Adolph".
He never spelled it with the ph. :shh:
How Grimm.
In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12689
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: CLIVEN BUNDY v GLORIA NAVARRO, et al.

#100

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:13 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Wonkette's doesn't quite slip off the tongue in the same way. And our version is what a judicial officer actually said about the slime bucket.
And just so darned appropriate and descriptive, and all in just three little letters.
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.

Post Reply

Return to “Bundy Ranch/Malheur NWR”