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

Finicum Lawsuit

Poots are fighting for FreeDumb
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Finicum Lawsuit

#276

Post by pipistrelle »

I wouldn't sweat over caffeine or even a little booze. My impression is there were serious drugs and booze involved at the Oregon standoff.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Finicum Lawsuit

#277

Post by Suranis »

Sam the Centipede wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 10:57 am It's a shame that the book of Leviticus doesn't include explicit consideration of caffeine etc. in its assault on joy and kindness.
Caffeine came along in the Second millennium, reputedly when some Arab Shepherds saw that their sheep would get all energetic when they ate certain beans, so it was far too late to be in Leviticus. The Bible has nothing negative to say about Alcohol that I know about. Gluttony, yes. And as for the"assault on joy and kindness," Lev tells you to be kind to travelers and strangers, for example. You can take lines out of anything to make it seem any way you want.

It does remind me of a good story about Caffine and the Pope. This happened around 1595.
Blessed Beans: How the Pope Baptized Coffee
April 9, 2014

I love coffee, and there are few things I enjoy more than a rich cup of the blessed brew. But my affection for this drink goes beyond preference and borders on necessity—for when the alarm goes off and I pry myself out of bed each morning, coffee is the only thing that can restore my humanity and keep me from drifting gently back to sleep in my chair.

If you’re like most people, you’ll probably agree with my sentiments. After all, coffee is one of the most popular drinks in the world. But did you know that the popularity of coffee in the West is largely due to Pope Clement VIII (1536-1605)?

Coffee has been around since the 9th century, when Islamic shepherds first noticed coffee beans having a stimulating effect on their sheep. After Islamic clerics learned how to cultivate the beans, coffee spread throughout the Muslim world, becoming a wildly popular.

When coffee was first brought to Christian Europe, it was greeted with a great deal of suspicion since it was the drink of the Muslim infidels with whom Christians had been at war for centuries. Some even went so far to call this exotic beverage “Satan’s drink.”

Inevitably, coffee made its way to the Vatican, where it was introduced to Pope Clement VIII. While many of his advisors clamored for the Pope to ban the controversial drink, he refused to do so before trying it himself.

The Pope was brought a steaming mug of java and he took a sip. He was immediately delighted, and according to legend, he declared, “This devil’s drink is delicious. We should cheat the devil by baptizing it.”

And the rest is history. Due to the papal blessing, coffee quickly spread throughout Europe and eventually the world, where it remains a perennially popular drink.

There you have it. Next time you take up a warm glass of your favorite brew, give thanks to God— and Pope Clement VIII.

PS: Since we’re talking about coffee, I have to recommend Catholic Gentleman coffee. It comes in the bold Mustache Blend or the refined Gentleman’s Blend. Happy drinking!
By contrast, merry old Charles II of England, he of many mistresses, tried to ban Coffee.

https://www.catholiccoffee.com/new-blog-post/
Charles II, King of England, had a “Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses” issued that banned coffee houses and the selling of coffee:

Whereas it is most apparent, that the Multitude of Coffee-Houses of late years set up and kept within this Kingdom . . . have produced very evil and dangerous effects; His Majesty hath thought it fit and necessary, That the said Coffee-houses be (for the future) Put down and Suppressed, and doth (with the Advice of His Privy Council) by this His Royal Proclamation, Strictly Charge and Command all manner of persons, That they or any of them do not presume from and after the Tenth Day of January next ensuing, to keep any Publick Coffee-house, or to Utter or sell by retail, in his, her or their house or houses (to be spent or consumed within the same) any Coffee, Chocolet, Sherbett or Tea, as they will answer the contrary at their utmost perils.”
Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses, 1675

The ban didn’t last long due to public outcry.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:48 pm
Verified:

Finicum Lawsuit

#278

Post by Azastan »

raison de arizona wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 5:05 am
Sam the Centipede wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 4:24 am I thought Mormons are anti-coffee? Or am I mistakenly or has another Eternal Truth been replaced by a different Eternal Truth? I'm a very confused person today!
Until recently the Mormon church banned all caffeinated drinks, including sodas.
https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/natio ... 963f4.html

My farrier is LDS, and he still does not drink sodas. Doesn't touch tea or coffee, either.
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1831
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

Finicum Lawsuit

#279

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Azastan wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:23 pm :snippity:
My farrier is LDS, and he still does not drink sodas. Doesn't touch tea or coffee, either.
Off topic old joke:
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:48 pm
Verified:

Finicum Lawsuit

#280

Post by Azastan »

My farrier would find that to be hilarious. He's really a nice guy.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Finicum Lawsuit

#281

Post by noblepa »

Suranis wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 2:39 pmhe Bible has nothing negative to say about Alcohol that I know about. Gluttony, yes.
My late mother-in-law was a devout evangelical Christian. She tried to explain to me once that the wine referred to in the Bible was really just grape juice and had no alcoholic content.

I tried to explain that fermentation is known to have been used as far back as the ancient Egyptians, and that in the heat found in most parts of the middle east, grape juice wouldn't be safe to drink for more than a day or so after it was squeezed.

Also, too, fermenting grapes into wine preserved the wine and allowed it to be shipped over relatively long distances, without spoiling.

Like whiskey making in colonial America, distilling or fermenting was a good way to take large, perishable bulk products, such as grain or grapes and reduce them to a form that was easy to transport and would survive the long trip to market.

She listened to my arguments and seemed to see the reasonableness of them, but, I could tell that she was not convinced, because her pastor had told her that it was grape juice.
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

Finicum Lawsuit

#282

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

noblepa:
My late mother-in-law was a devout evangelical Christian. She tried to explain to me once that the wine referred to in the Bible was really just grape juice and had no alcoholic content.
I heard the same thing from a Baptist in the 70's.
"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
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Finicum Lawsuit

#283

Post by Suranis »

Ya, people hammering the Bible into meaning whatever they want is probably as old as the Bible. There was a period when musical instruments in Church were effectively banned, and to justify it they started saying that mentions of Musical instruments being played before the Lord in the Bible were actually Allegory of the parts of the human body involved with singing. So the Drums were really the Voice Box, accordions meant the Lungs, etc. Completely stupid, I agree with you, but hey.

At the same period people officially disapproved of the notion of actually enjoying liturgical music. :bored:
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Finicum Lawsuit

#284

Post by Foggy »

Off Topic
I was at La Jolla Country Day School in sixth grade - run by Episcopalian military veterans - and they had Communion on Friday mornings, and I would hold that sip of real wine (I don't know what Jesus drank, but we got the real stuff) in my mouth until my brain got fermented.

Which, I admit, might help explain a few other things ... :?
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1831
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

Finicum Lawsuit

#285

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Dreaming of one day becoming coq au vin?
User avatar
johnpcapitalist
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:59 pm
Location: NYC Area
Verified: ✅ Totally legit!

Finicum Lawsuit

#286

Post by johnpcapitalist »

Sam the Centipede wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:26 am Dreaming of one day becoming coq au vin?
You win the Fogbow for the day!
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Finicum Lawsuit

#287

Post by northland10 »

Foggy wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:23 am
Off Topic
I was at La Jolla Country Day School in sixth grade - run by Episcopalian military veterans - and they had Communion on Friday mornings, and I would hold that sip of real wine (I don't know what Jesus drank, but we got the real stuff) in my mouth until my brain got fermented.

Which, I admit, might help explain a few other things ... :?
In the Episcopal world, where four are gathered, there will always be a fifth.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Finicum Lawsuit

#288

Post by northland10 »

Suranis wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:40 am Ya, people hammering the Bible into meaning whatever they want is probably as old as the Bible. There was a period when musical instruments in Church were effectively banned, and to justify it they started saying that mentions of Musical instruments being played before the Lord in the Bible were actually Allegory of the parts of the human body involved with singing. So the Drums were really the Voice Box, accordions meant the Lungs, etc. Completely stupid, I agree with you, but hey.

At the same period people officially disapproved of the notion of actually enjoying liturgical music. :bored:
Resisting the urge to go into a long-winded discussion about liturgical music... will not.. will not..

Okay, I will just say this. Some folks say church music was banned because a Pope Clement said don't do it, and that meant it was a rubric in scripture. Um.. no.. The simple rule on reading rules in old documents is that, if there was a rule against something, it meant, yes, they were doing it. What Clement was saying (and I have read up on these over the years) was basically, stop letting it get out of hand and becoming the liturgy itself and not supporting the liturgy (and this problem comes back all that time). You don't proscribe something that is not happening, you add rules when it is being done poorly and needs to be controlled better.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Kansas aka Red State Hell

Finicum Lawsuit

#289

Post by sad-cafe »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:26 am
noblepa:
My late mother-in-law was a devout evangelical Christian. She tried to explain to me once that the wine referred to in the Bible was really just grape juice and had no alcoholic content.
I heard the same thing from a Baptist in the 70's.
My mother used to tout that line

and we 4 girls had to wear DRESSES every day to school cause good little baptist girls didn't wear "mens attire"
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:

Finicum Lawsuit

#290

Post by Frater I*I »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:26 am
noblepa:
My late mother-in-law was a devout evangelical Christian. She tried to explain to me once that the wine referred to in the Bible was really just grape juice and had no alcoholic content.
I heard the same thing from a Baptist in the 70's.
They're still spouting it in the 21st century... :bored:
"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
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Finicum Lawsuit

#291

Post by Suranis »

northland10 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:05 pm Resisting the urge to go into a long-winded discussion about liturgical music... will not.. will not..

Okay, I will just say this. Some folks say church music was banned because a Pope Clement said don't do it, and that meant it was a rubric in scripture. Um.. no.. The simple rule on reading rules in old documents is that, if there was a rule against something, it meant, yes, they were doing it. What Clement was saying (and I have read up on these over the years) was basically, stop letting it get out of hand and becoming the liturgy itself and not supporting the liturgy (and this problem comes back all that time). You don't proscribe something that is not happening, you add rules when it is being done poorly and needs to be controlled better.
You probably know a lot more about it than I do :)
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

Finicum Lawsuit

#292

Post by keith »

Suranis wrote: Sun Oct 09, 2022 2:39 pm The Bible has nothing negative to say about Alcohol that I know about.
Perhaps we should ask: "What would Jesus do"?
(John 2 1-11 KJV)

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When jthe ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
poplove
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
Occupation: ukulele ambassador
Verified: ✅💚💙💜☮️💐🌈⚽️✅

Finicum Lawsuit

#293

Post by poplove »

Update on the appeal posted on the widder's FB and h/t Thestupidhurts @CraigSh49850532

:snippity:
Jeanette Finicum

BREAKING NEWS: On the evening of Monday, October 25, the clerk of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced that “The panel unanimously concludes that the facts and legal arguments in this case are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. It is thus ordered that this case be submitted on the briefs and record, without oral argument.” This was just two weeks prior to the scheduled oral arguments scheduled for November 7 in Portland, Oregon.

Thus, there will be no arguments in Portland on the 7th. The lateness of the Court’s announcement has left some of us with travel and lodging reservations which we must now try to cancel.

Our lawyers are disappointed in the 9th Circuit’s decision to rule without oral argument. However our lawyers believe our arguments are well stated in the written briefs, and that our appeal should not suffer from the lack of oral argument.

Our lawsuit against the FBI, the Oregon State Police and other defendants was wrongly dismissed by the lower court on grounds that our trial attorneys had “failed to prosecute” the case by missing a response deadline. Our attorneys Roger Roots and John Pierce believe the dismissal was one of the most outrageous findings of “failure to prosecute” in federal court history. (Our trial lawyers were barraged with more than a dozen motions to dismiss filed by the government agencies at the trial level.)

We believe we have a strong case on appeal and are hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the trial court’s dismissal.
Edited: typos
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Finicum Lawsuit

#294

Post by northland10 »

poplove wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:24 pm Update on the appeal posted on the widder's FB and h/t Thestupidhurts @CraigSh49850532

:snippity:
Jeanette Finicum
:snippity:
We believe we have a strong case on appeal and are hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the trial court’s dismissal.
I was wondering if cases with no oral arguments are more likely going to be affirmed. It seemed to me that if the panel wanted oral arguments, they wanted to dive deeper on the arguments which might lean toward more chances for reversal.

I did find an https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.c ... is subject covering the sixth circuit. They found that 25% of the civil cases with no oral arguments resulted in reversals whereas only 13% of those with oral arguments were reversed. This came with huge caveats, such as the small sample size and the percentage reversed from the no oral arguments may have been heavy with clear errors by the district courts. Of course, the big point was to really make your brief the best it can be and don't rely on the oral arguments to win the case.

Is there any sense in whether the choice of no oral arguments gives an idea of how the court will rule in the 9th (which is different than the 6th)?

Of course, Finicum's public claim of a "strong case" is a send-money statement, not a reality statement.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
johnpcapitalist
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:59 pm
Location: NYC Area
Verified: ✅ Totally legit!

Finicum Lawsuit

#295

Post by johnpcapitalist »

poplove wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:24 pm Update on the appeal posted on the widder's FB and h/t Thestupidhurts @CraigSh49850532

:snippity:
Jeanette Finicum

The lateness of the Court’s announcement has left some of us with travel and lodging reservations which we must now try to cancel.

Our lawsuit against the FBI, the Oregon State Police and other defendants was wrongly dismissed by the lower court on grounds that our trial attorneys had “failed to prosecute” the case by missing a response deadline. Our attorneys Roger Roots and John Pierce believe the dismissal was one of the most outrageous findings of “failure to prosecute” in federal court history. (Our trial lawyers were barraged with more than a dozen motions to dismiss filed by the government agencies at the trial level.)

We believe we have a strong case on appeal and are hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the trial court’s dismissal.
Edited: typos
P.S.: Send money! (not that I needed to say that)

So let me see if I got this right: you are whining about cancelling travel reservations for a date two weeks hence? What sort of hotel were you planning on staying in that you can't cancel with two weeks' notice? Must be some very posh vacation resort with a 30-day cancellation policy.

Those mean defendants each filing their own motion to dismiss, burying your poor attorneys in paperwork... Such tyranny! Or are the defendants' lawyers merely doing their job, each filing a motion to dismiss the counts relevant to them? If Racist Roger and John Pierce, Poot Consigliere Extraordinare couldn't figure out that they were going to get multiple motions to dismiss, they probably need some remedial legal education. Of course, we have known Racist Roger for a long time. And John Pierce was the MAGA douchebag that took on so many Jan 6 defendants that he was missing all kinds of deadlines. So I'm sure that the court gave some latitude on time and didn't blow the case out without plenty of warning. I'm sure that if the defendants were even one minute late on findings, Roots and Pierce would be all over it, demanding a mistrial.

I wonder how much the Widder Finicum has raised for this grift, how much has gone into her pocket and how much has gone to the two hapless bumblers representing her.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Finicum Lawsuit

#296

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:43 pmI did find an https://www.sixthcircuitappellateblog.c ... is subject covering the sixth circuit. They found that 25% of the civil cases with no oral arguments resulted in reversals whereas only 13% of those with oral arguments were reversed. This came with huge caveats, such as the small sample size and the percentage reversed from the no oral arguments may have been heavy with clear errors by the district courts. Of course, the big point was to really make your brief the best it can be and don't rely on the oral arguments to win the case.

Is there any sense in whether the choice of no oral arguments gives an idea of how the court will rule in the 9th (which is different than the 6th)?
No oral argument generally means affirmance, as most cases are affirmed on appeal.

This is especially true at the 9th, but never say never, as I'm aware of cases submitted without argument that have been reversed. But those are rare, and involve a situation where the lower court (or agency) made a glaring error.
Image ImageImage
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Finicum Lawsuit

#297

Post by Uninformed »

According to a Facebook video post of a few days ago on the “LaVoy Finicum - American Hero” page the widder says if they lose the appeal to the 9th they may go to the SCOTUS. The never ending grift grifts on.

She also appeared to say she is once again fostering children.
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Finicum Lawsuit

#298

Post by Uninformed »

Finicum appeal, district court ruling affirmed.

“ In summary, four of the five factors favor dismissal, and one factor is neutral. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this case for failure to prosecute. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We may affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support dismissal.”) (simplified).”

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -35064.pdf
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Finicum Lawsuit

#299

Post by Dave from down under »

:biggrin:
User avatar
poplove
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV
Occupation: ukulele ambassador
Verified: ✅💚💙💜☮️💐🌈⚽️✅

Finicum Lawsuit

#300

Post by poplove »

Uninformed wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:26 pm Finicum appeal, district court ruling affirmed.

“ In summary, four of the five factors favor dismissal, and one factor is neutral. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this case for failure to prosecute. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We may affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support dismissal.”) (simplified).”

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -35064.pdf
Thanks, Uninformed!! So much failing by the plaintiffs! I really enjoyed this part:
:snippity:
On
November 8—one week before the deadline for Plaintiffs’ response—Defendants declined to withdraw their motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs assert that by that date, their counsel was “out of town” and “would not return until December 15.” Plaintiffs failed to attach any supporting declaration explaining why counsel’s trip took priority over timely responding to Defendants’ motion or seeking an extension of
time. Based on the record before the district court, counsel’s reason for not responding to the Defendants’ motions was frivolous.
ETA: one more quoted sentence.
Post Reply

Return to “Bundys and their elk”