The KRAKEN rises, meaning the 2020 election fraud is being corrected.

[Hispo]

~

The problem with the "polls" is that some people may actually believe them and when their candidate looses spectacularly they naturally get convinced that it had to be a fraud and then it happens what it happened.

My question is, if Trump is allowed to run (a big if) and if he looses again, will he call on an assault on the Capitol again and praise the people performing such an act?

I don't think Trump would dare to call for their followers to explicitly assault anything or anyone in the case he lose the presidency of his country. The fact he is bad mouthing people now and believe he cannot be touchedz it is because he takes advantage of his state as leading candidate for the Republican party. If he loses he will likely just stay home and ask his lawyers to somehow use his private citizen status to get him out of trouble.

The kind of assault that the Trump people - average American citizens around the country - are doing right now is an assault on the evil in government. The people are waking up to the evil of the Dems and RINO's, especially including Biden and his team, and will be casting them out of government come some of the next elections, including the 2024 Presidential election.

As long as Biden is cast out the government, as you say, through democratic means, then it should not be a problem, the trouble comes when the democratic system itself is the one under siege because many people did not like the result. And let me remind you: one of the most important parts of democracy is the losing part to accept defeat and move on.

I am aware there are millions of people in the United States who disapprove the administration of Biden, that is fine and they have the right to express their disapproval, under their first amendment. But the constitution cannot be used as a tool to destroy the same laws there are written in it. And the first amendment is not supposed to protect difamation, for example.

Let me repeat what you said, "... the trouble comes when the democratic system itself is the one under siege because many people did not like the result." Your so-called 'many' was really 'most'. And when most of the voters don't get what they want because of election interference from other countries, as well as within, that's when Democracy is under siege. And that is what happened in the 2020 election. That's why Biden made it into office rather than Trump.

Nobody is using the Constitution to "destroy the same laws there are written in it." Rather, Congress and Biden are simply bypassing the Constitution, and doing much of what they simply want against the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment allows any speech that is or might be defamation against a group. If anybody thinks that he has been harmed by some so-called defamation, let him show the harm done to him in court, and require damages there. But...

He better make sure he really has some damages to show. Why? Because if he wasn't really damaged, the person he is accusing just might accuse HIM of defamation of character by taking him to court for nothing. This could go on and on, each one accusing the other, anew, of defamation of character in court. Who wins? The courts collect a fee from a filer every time he files documents with the court.

Just blurting the same stupid things over and over. Nobody has faked the results, Trump has never ever generated any proof of his claims not before the judges not in general.

If he wants to be the president he has to win an election honestly. You do not get to decide that the other guy is "evil" or that all is because of "a deep state" so you are ok to take the government by force. You do not get to decide how the constitution amendments are interpreted.

Lastly, and once more, the freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it has limits because it clashes with other rights, just like many other rights end where they start interfering with other rights.

Cannot you see all these arguments can be very clearly seen as the excuses of a looser? A rant of a childish rich preppy that did not get it his way?

The thing is that I can perfectly accept the posibility of serious irregularities during an election, it is something which is within the realm of the possible. So in my opinion, assuming Trump and his lawyers actually believed there was something fishy going on, they did good on going to judges and file lawsuits. Those are the regular channels which are supposed to be taken in the United States.
But Trump and his team could not bring any evidence on the table which could convince those judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself, by the way) so the lawsuits got dismissed and forgotten.

Who was at fault there?

[suchmoon]

The thing is that I can perfectly accept the posibility of serious irregularities during an election, it is something which is within the realm of the possible. So in my opinion, assuming Trump and his lawyers actually believed there was something fishy going on, they did good on going to judges and file lawsuits. Those are the regular channels which are supposed to be taken in the United States.
But Trump and his team could not bring any evidence on the table which could convince those judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself, by the way) so the lawsuits got dismissed and forgotten.

Who was at fault there?

If you file a lawsuit and have no evidence, you're at fault. Actually it was worse than that. Not only did they have no evidence but also got repeatedly scalded by multiple judges for being illiterate buffoons (well, maybe not quite in those words) for trivial things like not filing the appropriate paperwork and not-so-trivial things like putting people in danger with their frivolous lawsuits.

The legal system is not supposed to be used like that. It did work as designed (the lawsuits got dismissed) but still there was a lot of damage done by the reckless conspiratardery that these muppets tried to push.

[Antisthenes]

The legal system is not supposed to be used like that. It did work as designed (the lawsuits got dismissed) but still there was a lot of damage done by the reckless conspiratardery that these muppets tried to push.

Bitch, your deep state bigotry is beyond me, and it never ceases to amaze me.
You still talk about “reckeless conspiratards”, yet you seem to forget your personal high-treason part regarding the vaccines.

#skull.fuck.4U

[Hispo]

The thing is that I can perfectly accept the posibility of serious irregularities during an election, it is something which is within the realm of the possible. So in my opinion, assuming Trump and his lawyers actually believed there was something fishy going on, they did good on going to judges and file lawsuits. Those are the regular channels which are supposed to be taken in the United States.
But Trump and his team could not bring any evidence on the table which could convince those judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself, by the way) so the lawsuits got dismissed and forgotten.

Who was at fault there?

If you file a lawsuit and have no evidence, you're at fault. Actually it was worse than that. Not only did they have no evidence but also got repeatedly scalded by multiple judges for being illiterate buffoons (well, maybe not quite in those words) for trivial things like not filing the appropriate paperwork and not-so-trivial things like putting people in danger with their frivolous lawsuits.

The legal system is not supposed to be used like that. It did work as designed (the lawsuits got dismissed) but still there was a lot of damage done by the reckless conspiratardery that these muppets tried to push.

It catches my attention how Trump and his legal team actually focused on putting in the spotlight (in a very negative way) election workers and I think they never mentioned those state or federal judges who dismissed their lawsuits. I wonder why.
Perhaps, it has something to do with comparatively ease with one is able to smear a single person who does not have a position of power and a state/federal judge.
Though, it seems Trump is willing to cross that line when comes to judges who have something to do with with his personal legal problems.

I have seen in Twitter how videotapes of the election night are used to this day to call fraud on the election...

[BADecker]

~

Just blurting the same stupid things over and over. Nobody has faked the results, Trump has never ever generated any proof of his claims not before the judges not in general.

If he wants to be the president he has to win an election honestly. You do not get to decide that the other guy is "evil" or that all is because of "a deep state" so you are ok to take the government by force. You do not get to decide how the constitution amendments are interpreted.

Lastly, and once more, the freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it has limits because it clashes with other rights, just like many other rights end where they start interfering with other rights.

Cannot you see all these arguments can be very clearly seen as the excuses of a looser? A rant of a childish rich preppy that did not get it his way?

The thing is that I can perfectly accept the posibility of serious irregularities during an election, it is something which is within the realm of the possible. So in my opinion, assuming Trump and his lawyers actually believed there was something fishy going on, they did good on going to judges and file lawsuits. Those are the regular channels which are supposed to be taken in the United States.
But Trump and his team could not bring any evidence on the table which could convince those judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself, by the way) so the lawsuits got dismissed and forgotten.

Who was at fault there?

The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen.

Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because:
1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear;
2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity;
3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it;
4. Never artificial entity against man.

All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing.

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

[Hispo]

~

Just blurting the same stupid things over and over. Nobody has faked the results, Trump has never ever generated any proof of his claims not before the judges not in general.

If he wants to be the president he has to win an election honestly. You do not get to decide that the other guy is "evil" or that all is because of "a deep state" so you are ok to take the government by force. You do not get to decide how the constitution amendments are interpreted.

Lastly, and once more, the freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it has limits because it clashes with other rights, just like many other rights end where they start interfering with other rights.

Cannot you see all these arguments can be very clearly seen as the excuses of a looser? A rant of a childish rich preppy that did not get it his way?

The thing is that I can perfectly accept the posibility of serious irregularities during an election, it is something which is within the realm of the possible. So in my opinion, assuming Trump and his lawyers actually believed there was something fishy going on, they did good on going to judges and file lawsuits. Those are the regular channels which are supposed to be taken in the United States.
But Trump and his team could not bring any evidence on the table which could convince those judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself, by the way) so the lawsuits got dismissed and forgotten.

Who was at fault there?

The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen.

Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because:
1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear;
2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity;
3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it;
4. Never artificial entity against man.

All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing.

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Actually, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. My country has been under USA sanctions for years and we do not receive any economical aid from Washington, if anything both Trump and Biden would love to be the ones in charge when/if USA managed to overthrown our corrupt leaders and corrupt authorities.
Also, it is not completely about the SCOTUS, I assume. Because in the 2 hours long call Trump had with the secretary of State of Georgia (who voted for Trump and is a long standing Republican), Trump tried to make the case ballots were scanned multiple times and the secretary of State told him that the video had been put out of context by Ruddy.

So how come a Republican ally of Trump would not play along and call for the results of the election to be changed ? Perhaps he was an agent of the Deep state or simply did not want to break his loyalty to the office he assumed.

[BADecker]

~

The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen.

Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because:
1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear;
2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity;
3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it;
4. Never artificial entity against man.

All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing.

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Actually, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. My country has been under USA sanctions for years and we do not receive any economical aid from Washington, if anything both Trump and Biden would love to be the ones in charge when/if USA managed to overthrown our corrupt leaders and corrupt authorities.
Also, it is not completely about the SCOTUS, I assume. Because in the 2 hours long call Trump had with the secretary of State of Georgia (who voted for Trump and is a long standing Republican), Trump tried to make the case ballots were scanned multiple times and the secretary of State told him that the video had been put out of context by Ruddy.

So how come a Republican ally of Trump would not play along and call for the results of the election to be changed ? Perhaps he was an agent of the Deep state or simply did not want to break his loyalty to the office he assumed.

It's easily understandable that you don't have any idea about what I say. To understand it better, understand this: Everything done in America, even in the government, is based on two things:
1. The right to contract;
2. The right of private property.

It is the same for your country and all countries. The difference between countries is, some of the countries have it spoken/written out in the ope (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, the formal government of India, Bangladesh, and a few others), while other countries try to hide it, and the government people of still other countries break these two points by forcing their people into all kinds of things on the threat of punishment or death.

Think deeply about this, and figure out how it works and why. It will give you the best understanding of the US Government, and your own country's government, that you will ever get.

[paxmao]

~

The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen.

Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because:
1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear;
2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity;
3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it;
4. Never artificial entity against man.

All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing.

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Actually, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. My country has been under USA sanctions for years and we do not receive any economical aid from Washington, if anything both Trump and Biden would love to be the ones in charge when/if USA managed to overthrown our corrupt leaders and corrupt authorities.
Also, it is not completely about the SCOTUS, I assume. Because in the 2 hours long call Trump had with the secretary of State of Georgia (who voted for Trump and is a long standing Republican), Trump tried to make the case ballots were scanned multiple times and the secretary of State told him that the video had been put out of context by Ruddy.

So how come a Republican ally of Trump would not play along and call for the results of the election to be changed ? Perhaps he was an agent of the Deep state or simply did not want to break his loyalty to the office he assumed.

It's easily understandable that you don't have any idea about what I say. To understand it better, understand this: Everything done in America, even in the government, is based on two things:
1. The right to contract;
2. The right of private property.

It is the same for your country and all countries. The difference between countries is, some of the countries have it spoken/written out in the ope (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, the formal government of India, Bangladesh, and a few others), while other countries try to hide it, and the government people of still other countries break these two points by forcing their people into all kinds of things on the threat of punishment or death.

Think deeply about this, and figure out how it works and why. It will give you the best understanding of the US Government, and your own country's government, that you will ever get.

Such a simplistic view of the US and the world explains a lot why you dump the shit you dump in every post. Any participative regime is based in the separation of power, individual freedom, the rule of law, free press and free expression and many other principles. They ALL work together to provide the right framework for public life, allowing discussion without violence and impositions.

Trump has decided that he can pick and choose which ones of these are applicable to him and guess what... separation of powers, check and balances and rule of law are not the chosen ones.

[TwitchySeal]

~

The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen.

Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because:
1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear;
2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity;
3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it;
4. Never artificial entity against man.

All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing.

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Actually, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. My country has been under USA sanctions for years and we do not receive any economical aid from Washington, if anything both Trump and Biden would love to be the ones in charge when/if USA managed to overthrown our corrupt leaders and corrupt authorities.
Also, it is not completely about the SCOTUS, I assume. Because in the 2 hours long call Trump had with the secretary of State of Georgia (who voted for Trump and is a long standing Republican), Trump tried to make the case ballots were scanned multiple times and the secretary of State told him that the video had been put out of context by Ruddy.

So how come a Republican ally of Trump would not play along and call for the results of the election to be changed ? Perhaps he was an agent of the Deep state or simply did not want to break his loyalty to the office he assumed.

It's easily understandable that you don't have any idea about what I say. To understand it better, understand this:gobbledygook gobbledygook gobbledygook :
1. gobbledygook
2. gobbledygook

It is the same for your gobbledygook and all gobbledygook. The difference between gobbledygook is, some of the gobbledygook have it spoken/written out in the ope (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, the formal gobbledygook of India, Bangladesh, and a few others), while other gobbledygooks try to hide it, and the government people of still other countries break these two points by forcing their people into all kinds of things on the threat of punishment or death.

Think deeply about this, and figure out how it works and why. It will give you the best understanding of the US gobbledygook, and your own country's government, that you will ever get. gobbledygookgobbledygookgobbledygook

Oh hey that reminds me....


Jan. 6 rioter who used sovereign citizen 'gobbledygook' at trial is found guilty

A Jan. 6 rioter who represented himself during a jury trial and advanced sovereign citizen arguments that a federal judge described as "bulls---" and "gobbledygook" was found guilty Tuesday and ordered into government custody.

Taylor James Johnatakis of Washington state was arrested in February 2021 and went to trial starting last week. After just a few hours of deliberation, a jury found Johntakis guilty on Tuesday of felony counts of obstruction of an official proceeding, assaulting officers and civil disorder, as well as four misdemeanor charges.

Judge Royce Lamberth had grown frustrated with Johnatakis during a pretrial conference last week that took place the day before jury selection began. Johnatakis repeatedly said that he wanted to accept "full liability" for the charges. “I would like to come to a resolution,” Johnatakis said, though he refused to plead guilty to the charges.

Johnatakis “could get a lesser sentence" if he "weren’t so hardheaded," Lamberth said.

"I'm telling you the facts of life. You don't believe me," Lamberth said. "When they find you guilty, you're going to jail."

Once the jury trial began, Johnatakis didn't call any witnesses or put on a defense.

"I have repented all my sins," Johnatakis said during the trial, saying he requested that Lamberth "discharge" the matter — a common phrase from sovereign citizens — since, he said, there was no "controversy" before the court.

During the trial, Johnatakis questioned an FBI agent, Michael Kiley, on whether he accepted Johnatakis' apology for his actions. Kiley responded that it wasn't his place to accept Johnatakis' apology.More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack, and more than 400 have received sentences of incarceration. Online "Sedition Hunters" say about 1,000 additional rioters have been identified, but not yet arrested.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-rioter-used-sovereign-citizen-gobbledygook-trial-found-guilty-rcna126236



PS: The Kraken lawyer has plead guilty  conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties.  After being charged with actual election fraud and a bunch of other felonies, she agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges and testify for the government in Trumps trial in exchange for 6 years of probation.

That's the Kraken lawyer.  The one you mentioned in the very first post of this epic thread.

Here we go, boys and girls. The Kraken is finally starting to lift off the bottom. Click the links, and go to the site to show the many other links.


SIDNEY POWELL UPDATE

[Hispo]

~

The "forgotten" part you mentioned, is only something that you have forgotten or never seen.

Trump and his people tried to bring their evidence to the Supreme Court. But they were turned away because:
1. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to hear;
2. Cases that SCOTUS is designed to hear are man against man or man against artificial entity;
3. Artificial entity against artificial entity, if SCOTUS wishes to hear it;
4. Never artificial entity against man.

All of Trump's attempts to bring an election fraud case were attempted as artificial entity against artificial entity. The 'person' of the representation that Trump used was an attorney-entity. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear an artificial entity bringing a case - 3 and 4 above. Since they wouldn't hear the case, the media forgot any evidence that Trump had. But if you do the right kind of searches on Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and other of the Trump former team, you can dredge up the evidence that Trump was bringing.

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Actually, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. My country has been under USA sanctions for years and we do not receive any economical aid from Washington, if anything both Trump and Biden would love to be the ones in charge when/if USA managed to overthrown our corrupt leaders and corrupt authorities.
Also, it is not completely about the SCOTUS, I assume. Because in the 2 hours long call Trump had with the secretary of State of Georgia (who voted for Trump and is a long standing Republican), Trump tried to make the case ballots were scanned multiple times and the secretary of State told him that the video had been put out of context by Ruddy.

So how come a Republican ally of Trump would not play along and call for the results of the election to be changed ? Perhaps he was an agent of the Deep state or simply did not want to break his loyalty to the office he assumed.

It's easily understandable that you don't have any idea about what I say. To understand it better, understand this:gobbledygook gobbledygook gobbledygook :
1. gobbledygook
2. gobbledygook

It is the same for your gobbledygook and all gobbledygook. The difference between gobbledygook is, some of the gobbledygook have it spoken/written out in the ope (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, the formal gobbledygook of India, Bangladesh, and a few others), while other gobbledygooks try to hide it, and the government people of still other countries break these two points by forcing their people into all kinds of things on the threat of punishment or death.

Think deeply about this, and figure out how it works and why. It will give you the best understanding of the US gobbledygook, and your own country's government, that you will ever get. gobbledygookgobbledygookgobbledygook

Oh hey that reminds me....


Jan. 6 rioter who used sovereign citizen 'gobbledygook' at trial is found guilty

A Jan. 6 rioter who represented himself during a jury trial and advanced sovereign citizen arguments that a federal judge described as "bulls---" and "gobbledygook" was found guilty Tuesday and ordered into government custody.

Taylor James Johnatakis of Washington state was arrested in February 2021 and went to trial starting last week. After just a few hours of deliberation, a jury found Johntakis guilty on Tuesday of felony counts of obstruction of an official proceeding, assaulting officers and civil disorder, as well as four misdemeanor charges.

Judge Royce Lamberth had grown frustrated with Johnatakis during a pretrial conference last week that took place the day before jury selection began. Johnatakis repeatedly said that he wanted to accept "full liability" for the charges. “I would like to come to a resolution,” Johnatakis said, though he refused to plead guilty to the charges.

Johnatakis “could get a lesser sentence" if he "weren’t so hardheaded," Lamberth said.

"I'm telling you the facts of life. You don't believe me," Lamberth said. "When they find you guilty, you're going to jail."

Once the jury trial began, Johnatakis didn't call any witnesses or put on a defense.

"I have repented all my sins," Johnatakis said during the trial, saying he requested that Lamberth "discharge" the matter — a common phrase from sovereign citizens — since, he said, there was no "controversy" before the court.

During the trial, Johnatakis questioned an FBI agent, Michael Kiley, on whether he accepted Johnatakis' apology for his actions. Kiley responded that it wasn't his place to accept Johnatakis' apology.More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack, and more than 400 have received sentences of incarceration. Online "Sedition Hunters" say about 1,000 additional rioters have been identified, but not yet arrested.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-rioter-used-sovereign-citizen-gobbledygook-trial-found-guilty-rcna126236



PS: The Kraken lawyer has plead guilty  conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties.  After being charged with actual election fraud and a bunch of other felonies, she agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges and testify for the government in Trumps trial in exchange for 6 years of probation.

That's the Kraken lawyer.  The one you mentioned in the very first post of this epic thread.

Here we go, boys and girls. The Kraken is finally starting to lift off the bottom. Click the links, and go to the site to show the many other links.


SIDNEY POWELL UPDATE

I still do not get what the appeal is to claim one is a sovereign citizen or similar stuff in order to try to get some valid defence at court if it has been proven already that such defense is not effective at all in a court. Not even mentioning the mistake representing oneself is if one does not have any kind of legal experience... To me, it seems this person wanted to emulate Darrell Brooks defense, but again, that was a failed defense.
Maybe he was not aware of the outcome of Darells Brooks trial and thought it was a good idea. I don't know.

Also, Powell got a good deal, in my opinion. Being a lawyer herself, she may be very informed of the consequences of her actions had she not taken a deal.

[BADecker]

~

Oh hey that reminds me....


Jan. 6 rioter who used sovereign citizen 'gobbledygook' at trial is found guilty

A Jan. 6 rioter who represented himself during a jury trial and advanced sovereign citizen arguments that a federal judge described as "bulls---" and "gobbledygook" was found guilty Tuesday and ordered into government custody.

Taylor James Johnatakis of Washington state was arrested in February 2021 and went to trial starting last week. After just a few hours of deliberation, a jury found Johntakis guilty on Tuesday of felony counts of obstruction of an official proceeding, assaulting officers and civil disorder, as well as four misdemeanor charges.

Judge Royce Lamberth had grown frustrated with Johnatakis during a pretrial conference last week that took place the day before jury selection began. Johnatakis repeatedly said that he wanted to accept "full liability" for the charges. “I would like to come to a resolution,” Johnatakis said, though he refused to plead guilty to the charges.

Johnatakis “could get a lesser sentence" if he "weren’t so hardheaded," Lamberth said.

"I'm telling you the facts of life. You don't believe me," Lamberth said. "When they find you guilty, you're going to jail."

Once the jury trial began, Johnatakis didn't call any witnesses or put on a defense.

"I have repented all my sins," Johnatakis said during the trial, saying he requested that Lamberth "discharge" the matter — a common phrase from sovereign citizens — since, he said, there was no "controversy" before the court.

During the trial, Johnatakis questioned an FBI agent, Michael Kiley, on whether he accepted Johnatakis' apology for his actions. Kiley responded that it wasn't his place to accept Johnatakis' apology.More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol attack, and more than 400 have received sentences of incarceration. Online "Sedition Hunters" say about 1,000 additional rioters have been identified, but not yet arrested.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-rioter-used-sovereign-citizen-gobbledygook-trial-found-guilty-rcna126236



PS: The Kraken lawyer has plead guilty  conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties.  After being charged with actual election fraud and a bunch of other felonies, she agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges and testify for the government in Trumps trial in exchange for 6 years of probation.

That's the Kraken lawyer.  The one you mentioned in the very first post of this epic thread.

Here we go, boys and girls. The Kraken is finally starting to lift off the bottom. Click the links, and go to the site to show the many other links.


SIDNEY POWELL UPDATE

I still do not get what the appeal is to claim one is a sovereign citizen or similar stuff in order to try to get some valid defence at court if it has been proven already that such defense is not effective at all in a court. Not even mentioning the mistake representing oneself is if one does not have any kind of legal experience... To me, it seems this person wanted to emulate Darrell Brooks defense, but again, that was a failed defense.
Maybe he was not aware of the outcome of Darells Brooks trial and thought it was a good idea. I don't know.

Also, Powell got a good deal, in my opinion. Being a lawyer herself, she may be very informed of the consequences of her actions had she not taken a deal.

The sovereign citizen claim is a mistaken attempt to remain in the private when accosted by the public. Government has authority over the public. They don't have simple authority over the private. They need to get a warrant if they want to enter the private. The warrant if signed by a judge without credible evidence, or a grand jury authorization, can cost a judge his job, and damages.

"Representation" referring to the 'defendant', in any form is something that causes a defendant to essentially lose his case. Why representation at all? If you are present so that you can speak, why would you need to represent yourself? You don't need representing at all.

The judge wants you to represent yourself so that he can allow the prosecution to represent HIS client. Also, accepting representation essentially says that you are the 'person' listed on the indictment, when the person on the indictment is just a name, but is not you the flesh and blood man or woman. Also, you can be limited by the judge regarding what you speak into the record this way. So, don't represent yourself, or be represented. Simply stand present as a man or woman.

Since standing unrepresented, but present is different than most other trials - almost everybody in the recent past has stood represented in some way - case law doesn't apply, except for old case law, from times when little representation was used.

Powell is an attorney. If she was smart like Hillary Clinton, she could have gotten off totally free, by not being represented.


How The Federal-Private Speech Police Operated In Election 2020:


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-federal-private-speech-police-operated-election-2020-radar-highly-attuned-right
During the 2020 election, the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) partnered with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a consortium of groups led by the Stanford Internet Observatory, to track and counter what they considered mis- and dis-information.

EIP surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts and collected from the cooperating government and non-governmental entities that it calls its "stakeholders" potential violations of social media platforms' policies concerning election speech.

It coordinated its efforts primarily through a digital "ticketing" system. There, one of its as many as 120 analysts or an external partner could highlight a piece of offending social media content, or narrative consisting of many offending posts, by creating a "ticket," and share it with other relevant participants by "tagging" them. Tagged participants could then communicate with each other, in something of a group chat, about the veracity of the flagged content, concerns about its spread, and what actions they might take to combat it.

...

Hemingway concluded with a warning: “The censorship-industrial complex better buckle up, because the days of conservatives taking this lying down are over.”
...

[TwitchySeal]

EIP surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts

lol

surveilled

[BADecker]

EIP surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts

lol

surveilled

Maybe you should speed up to stop. No offense meant.

[paxmao]

...

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Provide proof.

Hint: "God (my imaginary friend) told me in my dreams", "Trump said it so it is true", "Those voices that speak to me all the time say so", "Tucker Carlson said so", "the Fox said so", "I read it in the (Bible, Koran, Book of Life, Harry Potter books, a documentary on the Aztec empire,...), "The same people that say that COVId does not exist told me so", "the same people who think that aliens assaulted the capitol told me" are NOT considered proof except in you parallel universe and the state of BAdeckdonia, where superman lives.

Go back to kindergarten dumbass.

[Hispo]

...

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Provide proof.

Hint: "God (my imaginary friend) told me in my dreams", "Trump said it so it is true", "Those voices that speak to me all the time say so", "Tucker Carlson said so", "the Fox said so", "I read it in the (Bible, Koran, Book of Life, Harry Potter books, a documentary on the Aztec empire,...), "The same people that say that COVId does not exist told me so", "the same people who think that aliens assaulted the capitol told me" are NOT considered proof except in you parallel universe and the state of BAdeckdonia, where superman lives.

Go back to kindergarten dumbass.

To me it is kind of wacky someone like him would accuse us of ignoring reality or trying to conveniently ignore some political facts because a new Trump presidency would translate to less money to ours respective countries. On one hand, it is true there are some countries which receive economical aid from the United States, specially those in central America... But the wacky parts comes when BADecker points his finger at us without even knowing where we are from.
There is a small chance he believes all the countries around the world receive money from the United States (even sanctioned ones) or perhaps he saw us talking a lil bit of Spanish somewhere else in the forum and only because of that simple observation he extrapolates and assumes we come from a country which would be economical crippled if it was not from USA AID.
Granted, not all the population in USA is that ignorant, but I have found people from that country on the interner who could could not even tell the difference between Mexico and Spain.
Anyways, since Trump does not like to give money away as president (as he implies) I wonder whether Trump will cut social security. I doubt it.

[paxmao]

...

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Provide proof.

Hint: "God (my imaginary friend) told me in my dreams", "Trump said it so it is true", "Those voices that speak to me all the time say so", "Tucker Carlson said so", "the Fox said so", "I read it in the (Bible, Koran, Book of Life, Harry Potter books, a documentary on the Aztec empire,...), "The same people that say that COVId does not exist told me so", "the same people who think that aliens assaulted the capitol told me" are NOT considered proof except in you parallel universe and the state of BAdeckdonia, where superman lives.

Go back to kindergarten dumbass.

To me it is kind of wacky someone like him would accuse us of ignoring reality or trying to conveniently ignore some political facts because a new Trump presidency would translate to less money to ours respective countries. On one hand, it is true there are some countries which receive economical aid from the United States, specially those in central America... But the wacky parts comes when BADecker points his finger at us without even knowing where we are from.
There is a small chance he believes all the countries around the world receive money from the United States (even sanctioned ones) or perhaps he saw us talking a lil bit of Spanish somewhere else in the forum and only because of that simple observation he extrapolates and assumes we come from a country which would be economical crippled if it was not from USA AID.
Granted, not all the population in USA is that ignorant, but I have found people from that country on the interner who could could not even tell the difference between Mexico and Spain.
Anyways, since Trump does not like to give money away as president (as he implies) I wonder whether Trump will cut social security. I doubt it.

He is not even that smart my friend, he probably thinks I am Ukrainian (which may or may not be true - nationalities come and go).

This dumbass is not accusing me of ignoring reality, he has accused me of being a criminal. I can provide abundant proof of him effectively being a dumbass - so I can perfectly claim that - while he cannot provide any proof of his accusations or, for that mater, for anything else he says.

As far as this forum is concern, I am an AI living in a IP-masked server in a non-mapped Island of the Pacific Ocean. Anyone wanting to argue with me will have to do it with arguments, not attacking who / what I am or where I happen to live at the moment. That's why he is saying all that dumbass shit.

[BADecker]

...

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Provide proof.

Hint: "God (my imaginary friend) told me in my dreams", "Trump said it so it is true", "Those voices that speak to me all the time say so", "Tucker Carlson said so", "the Fox said so", "I read it in the (Bible, Koran, Book of Life, Harry Potter books, a documentary on the Aztec empire,...), "The same people that say that COVId does not exist told me so", "the same people who think that aliens assaulted the capitol told me" are NOT considered proof except in you parallel universe and the state of BAdeckdonia, where superman lives.

Go back to kindergarten dumbass.

I just wanted to thank you for respecting me as much as you do. But don't do it. I am just a man like you (or are you a woman?).

We all have ideas and opinions and desires. And we talk harshly to each other to maintain our ideals in strength within us. So, it's understandable that we are going to pick on each other at times.

However, when one calls God imaginary, God perks up His ears a little, and listens to what that joker is saying. So, don't so it... think of or call God imaginary. God is Almighty. He holds your life in His hands. And He won't put up with your denial of Him. Hope and pray that He wakes you up to His existence gently. But for sure, wakes you up in this life.

All people die. At least it seems that way. In the resurrection at the last day, God will provide us all with the knowledge of why He judges us the way He does. It will be based on what we have thought of Him in this life. For those who have denied Him, the punishment will be great.

So, if you are truly a God-denier, change, while you have time. Get into the Bible to find out about God, and the basics of right and wrong and salvation... before it's too late.

[paxmao]

...

You simply conveniently want to forget because, like paxmao, your country would be one that would receive less money from the US if Trump were in control.

Provide proof.

Hint: "God (my imaginary friend) told me in my dreams", "Trump said it so it is true", "Those voices that speak to me all the time say so", "Tucker Carlson said so", "the Fox said so", "I read it in the (Bible, Koran, Book of Life, Harry Potter books, a documentary on the Aztec empire,...), "The same people that say that COVId does not exist told me so", "the same people who think that aliens assaulted the capitol told me" are NOT considered proof except in you parallel universe and the state of BAdeckdonia, where superman lives.

Go back to kindergarten dumbass.

I just wanted to thank you for respecting me as much as you do. But don't do it. I am just a man like you (or are you a woman?).

We all have ideas and opinions and desires. And we talk harshly to each other to maintain our ideals in strength within us. So, it's understandable that we are going to pick on each other at times.

However, when one calls God imaginary, God perks up His ears a little, and listens to what that joker is saying. So, don't so it... think of or call God imaginary. God is Almighty. He holds your life in His hands. And He won't put up with your denial of Him. Hope and pray that He wakes you up to His existence gently. But for sure, wakes you up in this life.

All people die. At least it seems that way. In the resurrection at the last day, God will provide us all with the knowledge of why He judges us the way He does. It will be based on what we have thought of Him in this life. For those who have denied Him, the punishment will be great.

So, if you are truly a God-denier, change, while you have time. Get into the Bible to find out about God, and the basics of right and wrong and salvation... before it's too late.

Believe in whatever you want - as humans we do not know many things - but do not think that you have some better reason than others base on a belief, because then is when God becomes "your imaginary friend". It is even immoral.

You actually need to prove facts, is just not enough to "believe". For example, I have evidence that you are a dumbass. so I do not need to believe it.

Just like Trump need to proof someone scammed him, it is not enough to "believe it".

[BADecker]

~

I just wanted to thank you for respecting me as much as you do. But don't do it. I am just a man like you (or are you a woman?).

We all have ideas and opinions and desires. And we talk harshly to each other to maintain our ideals in strength within us. So, it's understandable that we are going to pick on each other at times.

However, when one calls God imaginary, God perks up His ears a little, and listens to what that joker is saying. So, don't so it... think of or call God imaginary. God is Almighty. He holds your life in His hands. And He won't put up with your denial of Him. Hope and pray that He wakes you up to His existence gently. But for sure, wakes you up in this life.

All people die. At least it seems that way. In the resurrection at the last day, God will provide us all with the knowledge of why He judges us the way He does. It will be based on what we have thought of Him in this life. For those who have denied Him, the punishment will be great.

So, if you are truly a God-denier, change, while you have time. Get into the Bible to find out about God, and the basics of right and wrong and salvation... before it's too late.

Believe in whatever you want - as humans we do not know many things - but do not think that you have some better reason than others base on a belief, because then is when God becomes "your imaginary friend". It is even immoral.

You actually need to prove facts, is just not enough to "believe". For example, I have evidence that you are a dumbass. so I do not need to believe it.

Just like Trump need to proof someone scammed him, it is not enough to "believe it".

Good points. But they are basic points. If you would follow them, you would be in agreement with me.

[Vod]

This dumbass is not accusing me of ignoring reality, he has accused me of being a criminal. I can provide abundant proof of him effectively being a dumbass - so I can perfectly claim that - while he cannot provide any proof of his accusations or, for that mater, for anything else he says.

He thinks wearing a condom makes you a criminal.  Don't worry about his accusations.  Just youtube Sovereign Citizen to see where he gets his argument tactics.   Round and round you go, facts ignored.