Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#76

Post by LM K »

Guy Reffitt was offered several plea deals.

According to his wife, Nicole Reffitt, "they" were making an example out of her husband.

I know she's referring to the prosecuion. But someone needs to tell her that it was a jury of her husband's peers that found her husband guilty.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#77

Post by Frater I*I »

Kendra wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:59 pm
Zoe Tillman
@ZoeTillman
Guy Reffitt is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Friedrich on June 8 at 10am; it's expected to be in-person. We'll get sentencing memos by May 25.

Friedrich asks the govt if they expect to present victim testimony, AUSA Jeffrey Nestler says possibly.
[Expletive deleted] Around, and Found Out.... :dance:
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#78

Post by noblepa »

LM K wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 4:52 pm Guy Reffitt was offered several plea deals.

According to his wife, Nicole Reffitt, "they" were making an example out of her husband.
She says that as if its a bad thing.

I think that making an example of him is a terrific idea.

That is not to say that I condone malicious prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct, but there is no evidence of either in this case. Mr. Refiit, et al, engaged in nothing less than a failed coup d'etat. IMHO, whatever sentence he gets will not be enough.
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#79

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

Waiting with bated breath for orlylicious's congratulatory tweet :daydreaming:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#80

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Waiting for Godot. :daydreaming:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#81

Post by Maybenaut »

Kendra wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 2:34 pm
Just interviewed a juror. She said case was “simple”, no dissenting voice in jury room. Son’s testimony was powerful, she said. And the lack of a defense presentation was telling. Exclusive for
@CBSNews

Juror says they weren’t “trying to make a statement” with quick verdict. But she hopes they did. More on
@CBSEveningNews
“Telling.” Telling me that the jury failed to follow the judge’s instruction that the burden to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government, that the burden never shifts to the defense, and that the defense bore no burden to present any evidence whatsoever.

I’m not saying the jury got their verdict wrong, but this is bullshit. IMO.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Lani
Posts: 2507
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:42 am

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#82

Post by Lani »

I took it as saying the defense had nothing to refute the prosecutor's evidence.
Image You can't wait until life isn't hard anymore before you decide to be happy.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#83

Post by LM K »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:20 pm
Kendra wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 2:34 pm
Just interviewed a juror. She said case was “simple”, no dissenting voice in jury room. Son’s testimony was powerful, she said. And the lack of a defense presentation was telling. Exclusive for
@CBSNews

Juror says they weren’t “trying to make a statement” with quick verdict. But she hopes they did. More on
@CBSEveningNews
“Telling.” Telling me that the jury failed to follow the judge’s instruction that the burden to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government, that the burden never shifts to the defense, and that the defense bore no burden to present any evidence whatsoever.

I’m not saying the jury got their verdict wrong, but this is bullshit. IMO.
I thought so as well.

If I were a juror, I could understand wanting to hear an actual defense. But that's different from what she said.

But I'm not certain she voted based on that sentiment. The amount of evidence against against Reffitt was truly stunning, especially since much of it was Reffitt speaking on video, texts, and Telegram posts.

That said, her use of the word "telling" does raise red flags.

I'll see if I can find more info about that interview. Tweets don't give context.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#84

Post by Ben-Prime »

Lani wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:13 am I took it as saying the defense had nothing to refute the prosecutor's evidence.
Same. It's like the defense just looked at the prosecution's case, shrugged, and said "We don't think it proves anything." And relied solely on the fact that most people despite jury instructions can't often tell the difference between 'reasonable doubt' and 'any doubt whatsoever'.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#85

Post by realist »

Maybenaut wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:20 pm
Kendra wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 2:34 pm
Just interviewed a juror. She said case was “simple”, no dissenting voice in jury room. Son’s testimony was powerful, she said. And the lack of a defense presentation was telling. Exclusive for
@CBSNews

Juror says they weren’t “trying to make a statement” with quick verdict. But she hopes they did. More on
@CBSEveningNews
“Telling.” Telling me that the jury failed to follow the judge’s instruction that the burden to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government, that the burden never shifts to the defense, and that the defense bore no burden to present any evidence whatsoever.

I’m not saying the jury got their verdict wrong, but this is bullshit. IMO.
I think you are reaching too far for your conclusion. Nothing she said infers the prosecution didn't meet its burden. She said it was a simple case. I think a reasonable conclusion can be reached from that comment that the government met it's burden.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#86

Post by RVInit »

I didn't have time to follow in real time, but reading through every description from people in the courtroom the prosecution more than met it's burden. They probably could have presented ONLY what Reffitt himself posted before and after and the jury could likely have convicted based on that evidence alone. He posted all about what he was about to do, what his intentions were, how he wanted to find certain people, what he wanted to do to those people, ad infinitum. After Jan 6 he posted and boasted about what he had participated in. The fact that one of his own kids testified that he was threatened with grave bodily harm if he turned him in (as if that was even necessary in this case), was just icing on the cake. Glad to see this conviction. Now, all we have to do is keep the White House out of the hands of the likes of Trump and DeSantis and maybe the guy will actually serve a good bit of his probable sentence.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:48 pm
Verified:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#87

Post by Azastan »

LM K wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:25 am

That said, her use of the word "telling" does raise red flags.

I'll see if I can find more info about that interview. Tweets don't give context.
Does anyone know if the JUROR used that word and is actually being accurately quoted?
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#88

Post by Kendra »


In a pivotal victory for the Justice Department, the first person to go on trial on charges from the January 6 insurrection has been convicted on all counts.

The Texas man now faces up to 60 years in prison.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#89

Post by Maybenaut »

realist wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:58 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:20 pm
Kendra wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 2:34 pm
“Telling.” Telling me that the jury failed to follow the judge’s instruction that the burden to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government, that the burden never shifts to the defense, and that the defense bore no burden to present any evidence whatsoever.

I’m not saying the jury got their verdict wrong, but this is bullshit. IMO.
I think you are reaching too far for your conclusion. Nothing she said infers the prosecution didn't meet its burden. She said it was a simple case. I think a reasonable conclusion can be reached from that comment that the government met it's burden.
Perhaps. But since the defense isn’t obligated to present anything, the fact that they didn’t shouldn’t be “telling” with respect to the government’s burden. A prosecutor wouldn’t be allowed to argue to the jury, “hey, we put on all this evidence and the defense didn’t call a single witness or admit a single document,” because that would be shifting the burden. I don’t see any difference between that and what this juror said.

Having said that, though, I agree with the juror that it likely was a simple case and the prosecution did meet it’s burden. I’m just really sensitive about this sort of stuff because I really don’t have any confidence that juries really understand burdens and standards of proof.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:39 am
Location: Irvine, CA
Occupation: retired lawyer

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#90

Post by Dr. Caligari »

The Texas man now faces up to 60 years in prison.
Not realistically. The "60 years" claim-- typical of poor reporting in criminal cases-- assumes the maximum sentence on every count, all served consecutively. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines will yield a much shorter than 60-year sentence. But still a substantial one, especially given the obstruction counts based on death threats to his children.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#91

Post by Luke »

I'm doing this very carefully and stealthy (watched some 699th training videos over the weekend).





Another J6 Insurrectionist's wife, "Mrs-Swole_Pop (aka Cajun_Queen43)" :?: @mrs_swole, "Angel Harrelson a PROUD Wife of a #PPOWJ62021 and I don't give up no matter how much people try to take me down. I will use your hate as fuel to push harder!" jumped in. Angel is the wife of Retired Army Sgt Kenneth Harrelson.

HARRELSON, Kenneth | USAO-DC | Department of Justicehttps://www.justice.gov › ... › Capitol Breach Cases
HARRELSON, Kenneth. Case Number: 1:22-cr-15. Charge(s):. Seditious conspiracy and other charges. See accompanying indictment that was filed 1/12/2022. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defenda ... on-kenneth

Angel thought I misestimated the number of years Guy is facing.

Mrs-Swole_Pop (aka Cajun_Queen43) @mrs_swole·14h
🤣obviously you misread something somewhere cause you added a lot more years then what was stated. Well you see, I know I go off actual proof with a fine tooth comb and that’s not what is shown. I don’t watch tv & surely don’t trust any social media posts. Believe what you want

Provided a helpful link to the DOJ press release with the 60 years. Angel thought a great reply would be Brandon Straka's desperate begging to retweet Project Veritas' video about reporter Matt Rosenberg. :smoking:









This brought Nicole back into the mix, she misread my tweet and thought I was giving her too much money from GiveSendGo :?: and was ANGRY about it and posted a screenshot. I assured her that wasn't the case, and took the opportunity to highlight how Jackson's college fund has raised more than double what they have :P Nicole hasn't gotten back to me on that yet.




Nicole Reffitt @ReffittNicole·16h You got that last sentence right.
Mrs-Swole_Pop (aka Cajun_Queen43) @mrs_swole·14h Don’t you just love how these PEOPLE take what you said “You got that last sentence right.” Knowing it was ONLY meant for “They will keep trying”, meaning “We will never give up the constitution as it is or our rights.”
Nicole Reffitt @ReffittNicole·14h You know that is a fact…never give up never retreat
OrlyLicious 🇺🇸 @Orly_licious·14h Guy Reffitt was convicted by a jury of his peers, not the government. It's not about 1A or giving up or retreating, it's about not breaking laws. Guy did & faces 60 years in prison on 6/8. Why encourage others to end up in jail for decades like Guy will?bbc.comGuy Reffitt: First trial of US Capitol riot ends with conviction The first person to face trial over the 6 January storming of the US Capitol is found guilty on all counts.
Mrs-Swole_Pop (aka Cajun_Queen43)@mrs_swole·14h🤣obviously you misread something somewhere cause you added a lot more years then what was stated. Well you see, I know I go off actual proof with a fine tooth comb and that’s not what is shown. I don’t watch tv & surely don’t trust any social media posts. Believe what you want
Mrs-Swole_Pop (aka Cajun_Queen43)@mrs_swole·13hHere you go.
Quote Tweet Brandon Straka @BrandonStraka · 17h Project Veritas exposing the left’s lies about J6. Patriots- please, please, PLEASE- watch this and RETWEET IT. Important!!!
OrlyLicious 🇺🇸 @Orly_licious·13h Thanks & congrats on raising $219,515 on GiveSendGo. Your website design is nice looking, too. What do you mean by "here you go"? Simply posted today's Department of Justice statement about #GuyReffitt. What does the DOJ have to do with Straka or O'Keefe?justice.gov Texas Man Found Guilty by Jury of Felony Charges for Actions Related WASHINGTON – A Texas man was found guilty today by a federal jury of civil disorder, obstruction of justice, and other felony charges for his actions before, during, and after the breach of the U.S.
Nicole Reffitt @ReffittNicole Replying to @Orly_licious and @mrs_swole Actual amount raised…stop the lies…also since 3/21. Every cent by hardworking PATRIOTS12:52 AM · Mar 9, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
OrlyLicious 🇺🇸 @Orly_licious·13h Replying to @ReffittNicole and @mrs_swoleSorry if you misunderstood Nicole, I was replying to Angel's kind message, they've raised $219,515. https://givesendgo.com/G22ZH Have seen your admirable $75,721, & imagine you're happy that Jackson's College GoFundMe raised $169,066. Americans are generous. 🇺🇸
Considering it an accomplishment not being blocked by either of them after pretty much underscoring their husband's wrongdoing, the penalties they face, & the DOJ's press release. Nicole only has a few hundred followers, need to keep some powder dry. Decided the big congratulations should wait until the sentencing. :dance:
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#92

Post by LM K »

Dr. Caligari wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:55 pm
The Texas man now faces up to 60 years in prison.
Not realistically. The "60 years" claim-- typical of poor reporting in criminal cases-- assumes the maximum sentence on every count, all served consecutively. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines will yield a much shorter than 60-year sentence. But still a substantial one, especially given the obstruction counts based on death threats to his children.
I'll be surprised if her is sentenced to more than 20 years served concurrently. If his sentence is that long.

The seriousness of the crimes could motivate the judge to deem a consecutive sentence appropriate. Based on previous research I've done, the federal justice system typically gives concurrent sentences.

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984]Sentencing Reform Act of 1984

18 U.S. Code § 3553 - Imposition of a sentence

18 U.S. Code § 3584 - Multiple sentences of imprisonment
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#93

Post by LM K »

Azastan wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:16 am
LM K wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:25 am

That said, her use of the word "telling" does raise red flags.

I'll see if I can find more info about that interview. Tweets don't give context.
Does anyone know if the JUROR used that word and is actually being accurately quoted?
Edit: I just realized that I posted the same video as a fellow member posted earlier.

My apologies!





This was just posted this morning.



I don't know if this is the same juror MacFarlane texted about yesterday.

I wish more of this interview was posted. Having an opinion about the lack of defendant testimony doesn't mean that she used that opinion when voting.

The question in the jury room was rather or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Reffitt committed these crimes.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:48 pm
Verified:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#94

Post by Azastan »

Azastan wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:16 am
LM K wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:25 am

That said, her use of the word "telling" does raise red flags.

I'll see if I can find more info about that interview. Tweets don't give context.
Does anyone know if the JUROR used that word and is actually being accurately quoted?
Again, does ANYONE know if the JUROR used that word and is actually being accurately quoted?

I have yet to see the interview of the juror, so have no idea if Mr. MacFarlane ascribed that word to the juror, or if the juror actually used the word 'telling'.

Also, just to point this out--even if the juror used that word, it may not have been the correct word to use to describe the situation.

The lawyers here know that there's a legal description of 'actual malice', which doesn't mean the same thing to the average American as it does to lawyers. All of you lawyers are thinking like lawyers, but not like the average juror.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#95

Post by LM K »

Azastan wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:28 pm
Azastan wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:16 am
LM K wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:25 am

That said, her use of the word "telling" does raise red flags.

I'll see if I can find more info about that interview. Tweets don't give context.
Does anyone know if the JUROR used that word and is actually being accurately quoted?
Again, does ANYONE know if the JUROR used that word and is actually being accurately quoted?

No.

I have yet to see the interview of the juror, so have no idea if Mr. MacFarlane ascribed that word to the juror, or if the juror actually used the word 'telling'.

The video posted by Kendra and later I shows a brief snippetof a jury interview, but it'sway to brief to assess. I do not know if that juror is the same juror tweeted about yesterday. I suspect it is.

Also, just to point this out--even if the juror used that word, it may not have been the correct word to use to describe the situation.

The lawyers here know that there's a legal description of 'actual malice', which doesn't mean the same thing to the average American as it does to lawyers. All of you lawyers are thinking like lawyers, but not like the average juror.
Agreed.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#96

Post by filly »

Realist has this right.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#97

Post by LM K »

Maybenaut wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm
realist wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:58 am
Maybenaut wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:20 pm

“Telling.” Telling me that the jury failed to follow the judge’s instruction that the burden to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government, that the burden never shifts to the defense, and that the defense bore no burden to present any evidence whatsoever.

I’m not saying the jury got their verdict wrong, but this is bullshit. IMO.
I think you are reaching too far for your conclusion. Nothing she said infers the prosecution didn't meet its burden. She said it was a simple case. I think a reasonable conclusion can be reached from that comment that the government met it's burden.
Perhaps. But since the defense isn’t obligated to present anything, the fact that they didn’t shouldn’t be “telling” with respect to the government’s burden. A prosecutor wouldn’t be allowed to argue to the jury, “hey, we put on all this evidence and the defense didn’t call a single witness or admit a single document,” because that would be shifting the burden. I don’t see any difference between that and what this juror said.

Having said that, though, I agree with the juror that it likely was a simple case and the prosecution did meet it’s burden. I’m just really sensitive about this sort of stuff because I really don’t have any confidence that juries really understand burdens and standards of proof.
MacFarlane tweeted a super brief snippet of his interview. The snippet aired this morning is also very brief. Without more info, I think your assumption is unsupported.

Edit: the juror never used the word "telling".
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#98

Post by LM K »

"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
Flatpoint High
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
Verified:

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#99

Post by Flatpoint High »

noblepa wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:20 pm
LM K wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 4:52 pm Guy Reffitt was offered several plea deals.

According to his wife, Nicole Reffitt, "they" were making an example out of her husband.
She says that as if its a bad thing.

I think that making an example of him is a terrific idea.

That is not to say that I condone malicious prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct, but there is no evidence of either in this case. Mr. Refiit, et al, engaged in nothing less than a failed coup d'etat. IMHO, whatever sentence he gets will not be enough.
To her, it is a "bad thing"
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: USA vs. GUY WESLEY REFFITT

#100

Post by Luke »

filly wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:37 pm Realist has this right.
Realist is ALWAYS right. And thank God he keeps dancing for us! I'd be beyond hurt and upset if he stopped. He tried once and the outcry was a tsunami or tears and he had to put it back to calm us kids down. :P
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”