I could care less about the impression you got.
And, yet, you saw fit to fix my impression. Seems like you do care a great deal.
Lets use a different topic, and I'll show you why your responce is flawed. Look at the vaccine situation. J&J vaccine has a blood clot death rate of 0.00009%. The way you argue, you'd be in favor of banning them all because 6 people died from it. Your problem is your apperant innability to see the bigger picture.
You do know you'd have to prove I'm him, right? Othervise it'd be tossed and you might be found to posses actual malice.
But don't be fooled. What
@Useful_Mistake isn't telling you that individual situations and motives can change previous rulings on similar cases.
Not really. The Courts tend to follow the directions of previous rullings (it's a precedent after all), and impactful changes are extremely rare, and almost always, are done by the Supreme Court (see, for example, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), where the SCOTUS changed defamation in all of US. Cases like the before mentioned and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), are extremely rare exceptions, and are not the rule. Brandenburg v Ohio was later reaffirmed nearly 63 times in 52 years (NYT v Sullivan 197 in 57 years). If you look at Free speech rulings after BvO, you won't find any change like that, same goes for NYTvS in defamation.
Tldr: Relying on your lawsuit to change preexisting law and caselaw in effort to make you win is both retarded and very unlikely. Minor changes can occur, yes, but if appelate court has ruled that for the purposes of defamation (for example), merely denying the accusation is enough to defeat it and pass Actual Malice test, then nothing will change that, bar a big redoing of the entire system from the higher up (state supreme courts/SCOTUS), which is not likely, because the courts have a big hard on in regards to following precedents.
Unlike you, Pam, I don't attempt to mislead people.
That's when lawyers like him destroy a person's credibility and testimony or harass them like making a thread on hate website.
That is in no way shape or form related to what you said before. For an English Tutor you can't even follow a single line of thought.
That being said, challenging and destroying the opposing council's testimony is a job
every lawyer does, especially criminal lawyers. Lawyers want their clients to win, big shocker. Same goes for credibility argument.
In regards to the "harassment" argument, Lawyers tend to not do that. No client is worth the problem. If we are using you as an example, harassment requires installation of fear, and fear cannot be presumed (reasonably) where the 'victim' has stated to be not only enjoying herself, but also attempts to attack the 'attackers'.
You know nothing about law, Pam, and that's why your lawsuits always fail. And that's why I am always right about the legal issues presented in your lawsuits.
