💥 Trainwreck Pamela Swain / DocHoliday1977 / MsPhoenix1969 / Observer1977 / danishlace2003 / Writer_thriller - Victim of grand #MeToo conspiracy, litigious wannabe starfucker, off her meds and online

[DocHoliday1977]

BRAD PITT

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Do you know how many people either die or get seriously hurt trying to fawn with these monsters? Please wake up.

I appreciate your concern but I don't think they are that terrible or that they would have a reason to go after me.

They are not your friends.

Interlocutors, I'd say. Some even online pals. But not friends, this implies a strong and personal relationship, something difficult to develop by text-only communication.

You are playing with fire and I don't want to see you get hurt.

Ditto. That's why I keep telling you not do to something reckless.

 

[DancingDino]

Interlocutors, I'd say. Some even online pals. But not friends, this implies a strong and personal relationship, something difficult to develop by text-only communication.

we arent besties? ;'( i showed you my foreign coin collection...

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I appreciate your concern but I don't think they are that terrible or that they would have a reason to go after me.

Interlocutors, I'd say. Some even online pals. But not friends, this implies a strong and personal relationship, something difficult to develop by text-only communication.

Ditto. That's why I keep telling you not do to something reckless.

lol Harvey never had a good reason to go after women but he did.

I'm not being reckless and meeting up with monsters. I'm here where I live living my best life in spite of monsters who look to use their money and resources to rape, murder, and molest women and girls. And I haven't made any threats. They have.

 

[DancingDino]

lol Harvey never had a good reason to go after women but he did.

I'm not being reckless and meeting up with monsters. I'm here where I live living my best life in spite of monsters who look to use their money and resources to rape, murder, and molest women and girls. And I haven't made any threats. They have.

you literally told me only one of us would come out of our interactions alive you have made many threats to kill me/ legally go after people in this thread

 

[DocHoliday1977]

we arent besties? ;'( i showed you my foreign coin collection...

Shaking my head. PICK A SIDE, GERRY BUTLER.

you literally told me only one of us would come out of our interactions alive you have made many threats to kill me/ legally go after people in this thread

You all drew First Blood.

@Gay Actor Javier Bardem

You all can't just start shit with people and keep doing trying to physically harm them without expecting them to fight back. If you think this, you deserve to be sued.

 

[DancingDino]

@Gay Actor Javier Bardem

You all can't just start shit with people and keep doing trying to physically harm them without expecting them to fight back. If you think this, you deserve to be sued.

I've never tried to psychically harm you. WE HAVE NEVER MET IN REAL LIFE

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I've never tried to psychically harm you. WE HAVE NEVER MET IN REAL LIFE

Funny how that's what I'd been trying to say all this time but some faggots keep saying I had erotomania for celebrities. Which is correct? I thought I was trying to bone every useless celebrity I could, but NOW, NOW, the admission that "I've never met you" comes out.

I was telling the truth. You and Tony Robbins and Harvey Weinstein have physically harmed me in my way of making a living.

 

[DancingDino]

Funny how that's what I'd been trying to say all this time but some faggots keep saying I had erotomania for celebrities. Which is correct? I thought I was trying to bone every useless celebrity I could, but NOW, NOW, the admission that "I've never met you" comes out.

I was telling the truth. You and Tony Robbins and Harvey Weinstein have physically harmed me in my way of making a living.

I'm not a celebrity. IVE NEVER TRIED TO SABOTAGE YOUR LIFE, please get that through your thick skull

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I'm not a celebrity. IVE NEVER TRIED TO SABOTAGE YOUR LIFE, please get that through your thick skull

DEAR GOD , how I HATE YOU, TONY ROBBINS. NO, you need to take responsibility.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Interesting

Thank you.

Welcome to the threat factory! They are rolling out the threats daily!

I see we do have to have another threat talk, Pam. Here are a few posts you should look at to refresh your memory:

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al. v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE COMPANY et al. post.

Spoiler: Conclusion of the post

The Court found that threatening to break the necks of 'black people', was a constitutionally protected action. They also made it clear that "mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment. " as well as "the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

History of SCOTUS threat cases as well as Robert WATTS v. UNITED STATES,394 U.S. 705 (1969) post.

Spoiler: Conclusion of the post

around 52 years of Supreme Court caselaw (starting most famously from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ) have always upheld the idea that the states have pretty much no power to punish threats.
Another fun example, in Robert WATTS v. UNITED STATES,394 U.S. 705 (1969), a man who threatened to kill the president of USA, was found not guilty by the Supreme Court, even though he violated threat laws of his state.

United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) post

Spoiler: Conclusion of the post

In effect, the Court was stating that threats punishable consistently with the First Amendment were only those which according to their language and context conveyed a gravity of purpose and likelihood of execution.
So long as the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution, the statute may properly be applied.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/threats-of-violence-against-individuals

The Ninth Circuit concluded that a “true threat” is “a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person.”1239 “It is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat.”1240
Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm. . . .”1241 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls. . . . Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm. . . . Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. . . .”1242 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.”1243

1. Georgia (where you live in) is the 11th circuit, not 9th.
2. Supreme Court is superior to the 9th Circuit courts.
3. This specific 9th Circuit case only looks for the definition of threat under a very specific act, that only applies to very specific people (FACE act that applies only to medical professionals who are providing "reproductive health services" )
4. It requires "the intent to intimidate" which you cannot prove.
5. This case reaffirmed United States v. Kelner which requires that "the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution"
6. "Indeed, context is critical in a true threats case"
7. This case reafirms Branderburg v Ohio which "makes it clear that the First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action"
8. "We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that use of the Crist Poster, the Deadly Dozen Poster, and the individual plaintiffs' listing in the Nuremberg Files constitute a true threat. However, the Nuremberg Files are protected speech."
9. Doctors have literally died due to Nuremberg Files while you have not.
10. FACE act requires that the threats are made because of person providing medical services, and applies for no other reason.

All in all, bad citation on your part. www.law.cornell.edu is a good site for a brief overview, but you need to go deeper than that, if you plan on citing something.

but yea me challenging you to a medieval duel was infact (this will surprise you!) A joke

I think any reasonable person would have found that clear. Quite telling that Pam didn't.

why would the fbi care about the farms? no one does anything illegal here, you are a paranoid little guy arent ya

Tbf, FBI had asked Null for @SIGSEGV 's info and he gave it to them

Although, Sigsegv was later unbanned.

@Gay Actor Javier Bardem

You all can't just start shit with people and keep doing trying to physically harm them without expecting them to fight back. If you think this, you deserve to be sued.

No one is trying to physically harm you, and you can't prove it.

I was telling the truth. You and Tony Robbins and Harvey Weinstein have physically harmed me in my way of making a living

False.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

we arent besties? ;'( i showed you my foreign coin collection...

...where is my foreign coin collection? I'm sure I had it somewhere here...

lol Harvey never had a good reason to go after women but he did.

He is broken in the head and instead of seeking help and treatment he indulged himself. Look where it lead him.

I'm not being reckless and meeting up with monsters.

Glad to hear it.

I'm here where I live living my best life

Glad to hear it too. But there is always some room for improvement, wouldn't you say?

 

[DancingDino]

Tbf, FBI had asked Null for @SIGSEGV 's info and he gave it to them

Although, Sigsegv was later unbanned.

thanks for the info but this doesn't really change my mind as one bad apple doesn't rot the whole tree and I doubt the FBI cares about the entirety of the site especially when what sigsegv said was illegal as it was conspiring to commit mass murder.

compared to pam i doubt the fbi cares if she thinks some Hollywood jews want to rape her

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Thank you.

I see we do have to have another threat talk, Pam. Here are a few posts you should look at to refresh your memory:

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al. v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE COMPANY et al. post.

Spoiler: Conclusion of the post

The Court found that threatening to break the necks of 'black people', was a constitutionally protected action. They also made it clear that "mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment. " as well as "the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

History of SCOTUS threat cases as well as Robert WATTS v. UNITED STATES,394 U.S. 705 (1969) post.

Spoiler: Conclusion of the post

around 52 years of Supreme Court caselaw (starting most famously from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ) have always upheld the idea that the states have pretty much no power to punish threats.
Another fun example, in Robert WATTS v. UNITED STATES,394 U.S. 705 (1969), a man who threatened to kill the president of USA, was found not guilty by the Supreme Court, even though he violated threat laws of his state.

United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) post

Spoiler: Conclusion of the post

In effect, the Court was stating that threats punishable consistently with the First Amendment were only those which according to their language and context conveyed a gravity of purpose and likelihood of execution.
So long as the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution, the statute may properly be applied.

1. Georgia (where you live in) is the 11th circuit, not 9th.
2. Supreme Court is superior to the 9th Circuit courts.
3. This specific 9th Circuit case only looks for the definition of threat under a very specific act, that only applies to very specific people (FACE act that applies only to medical professionals who are providing "reproductive health services" )
4. It requires "the intent to intimidate" which you cannot prove.
5. This case reaffirmed United States v. Kelner which requires that "the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution"
6. "Indeed, context is critical in a true threats case"
7. This case reafirms Branderburg v Ohio which "makes it clear that the First Amendment protects speech that advocates violence, so long as the speech is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is not likely to incite or produce such action"
8. "We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that use of the Crist Poster, the Deadly Dozen Poster, and the individual plaintiffs' listing in the Nuremberg Files constitute a true threat. However, the Nuremberg Files are protected speech."
9. Doctors have literally died due to Nuremberg Files while you have not.
10. FACE act requires that the threats are made because of person providing medical services, and applies for no other reason.

All in all, bad citation on your part. www.law.cornell.edu is a good site for a brief overview, but you need to go deeper than that, if you plan on citing something.

I think any reasonable person would have found that clear. Quite telling that Pam didn't.

Tbf, FBI had asked Null for @SIGSEGV 's info and he gave it to them
View attachment 2054901
Although, Sigsegv was later unbanned.

No one is trying to physically harm you, and you can't prove it.

False.

I love when you do the research for me.

...where is my foreign coin collection? I'm sure I had it somewhere here...

He is broken in the head and instead of seeking help and treatment he indulged himself. Look where it lead him.

Glad to hear it.

Glad to hear it too. But there is always some room for improvement, wouldn't you say?

In what way? Sex with a man regularly?

thanks for the info but this doesn't really change my mind as one bad apple doesn't rot the whole tree and I doubt the FBI cares about the entirety of the site especially when what sigsegv said was illegal as it was conspiring to commit mass murder.

compared to pam i doubt the fbi cares if she thinks some Hollywood jews want to rape her

Individuals.

 

[DancingDino]

to bad pam will never be able to sue me as I'm a ambassador for sexy awesome cool guy land and i have immunity

 

[DocHoliday1977]

to bad pam will never be able to sue me as I'm a ambassador for sexy awesome cool guy land and i have immunity

You're trying to joke your way out of this and it's not funny. You know, Tony did this to Morgan too. You need to sincerely apologize to me and even Morgan. You know she was a good hearted girl.

 

[DancingDino]

You're trying to joke your way out of this and it's not funny. You know, Tony did this to Morgan too. You need to sincerely apologize to me and even Morgan. You know she was a good hearted girl.

im sorry you're an insane bitch

 

[Useful_Mistake]

what sigsegv said was illegal

Meh. I think Robert WATTS v. UNITED STATES,394 U.S. 705 (1969) would make it legal. Still, FBI takes those threats seriously. Other than that, I agree with you.

I love when you do the research for me.

You do realise that every one of my citations have proved you wrong? If anything, I'd be doing the research for anyone you sue.

to bad pam will never be able to sue me as I'm a ambassador for sexy awesome cool guy land and i have immunity

Plz inv me to sexy awesome cool guy land

 

[DancingDino]

Plz inv me to sexy awesome cool guy land

it was always inside you all along babe

 

[DocHoliday1977]

im sorry you're an insane bitch

Gerry. No. Do this right. Make restitution and treat people better. I know you want to. Do this to be right with God so He can bless you.

Meh. I think Robert WATTS v. UNITED STATES,394 U.S. 705 (1969) would make it legal. Still, FBI takes those threats seriously. Other than that, I agree with you.

You do realise that every one of my citations have proved you wrong? If anything, I'd be doing the research for anyone you sue.

Plz inv me to sexy awesome cool guy land

Michael. You are not American. Seriously. Give it up.