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

[DocHoliday1977]

Well, if you can't provide counter proof than you are simply wrong and in denial

No.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

No.

Still in denial, I see. I'll help you.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Still in denial, I see. I'll help you.
View attachment 2139578
View attachment 2139580
View attachment 2139581

I'm glad you have a signature of this, but it wasn't sent to me.

I submitted an Amended Complaint and they did not send me the dismissal. John Triplett was found posting on here too. He won't traipse back on here any time soon either will he? Nor Christopher Ray. The DOJ put the kibosh on that, didn't they?

Yep. Cope, buddy.

Still in denial, I see. I'll help you.
View attachment 2139578
View attachment 2139580
View attachment 2139581

You don't run shit in this country Dershoshit.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

I was asleep.

Biases always cloud judgement - be it my bias in your favor or Useful's bias against you. Best we can do is to be aware of them, can't really root them out. In this case my bias turned out to lead me to further investigation and coming up with correct conclusion, another time I'll be the one who's wrong.
We can take it a step further: based on our respective biases we, without consulting each other, took exactly the same action. Look:

Useful:


Me:

...we both contributed to this user being banned. I did it to spare you more accusations, Useful - probably to end your presumed naughty fun (and, of course, we're both goodbois and report trollbois).
Ethics, motivation, action and reaction - so fun, so nuanced, so far from your typical black and white.

You are not allowed to file meritless, frivolous suits (see Rule 11 FRCP, for IFP (see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915) (or for 11th circuit see Ronnie Lee Camp v. Dr. Oliver, Medical Director, Dr. Theodore G. Smith, Ga. Diag. Dr., Dr. J.E. Umberhandt, Inst. Dr. Rivers North Unit at Hardwick, Ga., 798 F.2d 434 (11th Cir. 1986), Benjamin Franklin Phillips v. Telfair J. Mashburn, Judge, Mobile, Al. Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., Atty. Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., Atty. A. Neil Hudgens & Associates, John W. Coleman & Associates, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984). )

It's not allowed, though, and if you abuse it, the courts will literally take away your right to file lawsuits (as federal courts have already threatened to do to her in Swain v. Weinstien (6:20-cv-00082) docket 8 )

That's kind of what I mean - the system has a built-in self-defense system against being exploited. If the mechanism didn't kick in - either the system is broken or she's in the clear. When it kicks in - I rest my case.
Of course at the same time I would encourage her to use her time and energy in more productive and fulfilling ways.

But it's not about ethics, though.

Guilty as charged, I shamelessly tried to steer the conversation to the area I feel more competent in.

We were talking about her being "danger to herself or others". And in my opinion she is a danger to others, both financially by abuse of court system,

I could puckishly argue she improved in this regard as if I understand correctly the most recent lawsuits never reached the stage where the defendants are forced to respond?

and possibly physically, given how much she wants to find us and beat us up.

This I seriously doubt. I'm willing to assume that if she ever saw me walking down a street and knew it's me (ain't gonna happen, I doubt either of us wants to cross the big pond) the worst that could happen would be me having my ugly mug photographed and posted here. More probably an awkward banter or ignoring me all together. Seriously doubt she would attempt to physically hurt anybody, especially after seeing us for what we really are: random people.

Well, I think we can both agree that Pam doesn't do that.

And thank Powers That Be for that.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

And thank Powers That Be for that.

I didn't follow this, but I have every right to exact my rights as pro se.

I could puckishly argue she improved in this regard as if I understand correctly the most recent lawsuits never reached the stage where the defendants are forced to respond?

They will. And anyone protecting rapists will get sued too.

This I seriously doubt. I'm willing to assume that if she ever saw me walking down a street and knew it's me (ain't gonna happen, I doubt either of us wants to cross the big pond) the worst that could happen would be me having my ugly mug photographed and posted here. More probably an awkward banter or ignoring me all together. Seriously doubt she would attempt to physically hurt anybody, especially after seeing us for what we really are: random people.

I wouldn't be happy to see you. But you would probably get cussed out. I still hear you think I should be raped by Tony and run over in my rights. We would never be besties.

Truth is, someone told the judge that Trump was trying to make him rule in his favor and making promises.


Didnt go over well.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I'm glad you have a signature of this, but it wasn't sent to me.

Doesn't have to be. PACER exists and courts expect you to use it. (Wilbert E. Hollins, v. Department of Corrections of the State of Florida,, 191 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1999)

I submitted an Amended Complaint

Irrelavant. Your lawsuit was already dismissed by then.

they did not send me the dismissal.

You don't have to receive it. It was entered in the system and is final. You always have the ability to view, and are expected to do so, this decision in PACER.

John Triplett was found posting on here too.

Proof? That's the first time you mentioned him.

The DOJ put the kibosh on that, didn't they?

Probably no.

Yep. Cope, buddy

You are the one who lost the lawsuit.

That's kind of what I mean - the system has a built-in self-defense system against being exploited. If the mechanism didn't kick in - either the system is broken or she's in the clear.

Courts are super lenient on punishing pro se. They view them as something like a teacher would view a special ed kid.

I could puckishly argue she improved in this regard as if I understand correctly the most recent lawsuits never reached the stage where the defendants are forced to respond?

True, although I dare say she would not consider that an improvement.

I'm willing to assume that if she ever saw me walking down a street and knew it's me (ain't gonna happen, I doubt either of us wants to cross the big pond) the worst that could happen would be me having my ugly mug photographed and posted here

I'd agree with you if I wasn't under the assumption that she is not entirely mentally sound. But, fair enough, I might have been overselling my point.

And thank Powers That Be for that.

Agreed.

I didn't follow this

Clearly, because that's not what we were talking about.

but I have every right to exact my rights as pro se.

Until the court takes them away.

They will.

Doubtful

And anyone protecting rapists will get sued too.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Truth is, someone told the judge that Trump was trying to make him rule in his favor and making promises.


Didnt go over well.

Post proof. You can't, because you are lying.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Doesn't have to be. PACER exists and courts expect you to use it. (Wilbert E. Hollins, v. Department of Corrections of the State of Florida,, 191 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1999)

Irrelavant. Your lawsuit was already dismissed by then.

You don't have to receive it. It was entered in the system and is final. You always have the ability to view, and are expected to do so, this decision in PACER.

Proof? That's the first time you mentioned him.

Probably no.

You are the one who lost the lawsuit.

Courts are super lenient on punishing pro se. They view them as something like a teacher would view a special ed kid.

True, although I dare say she would not consider that an improvement.

I'd agree with you if I wasn't under the assumption that she is not entirely mentally sound. But, fair enough, I might have been overselling my point.

Agreed.

Clearly, because that's not what we were talking about.

Until the court takes them away.

Doubtful

Good luck, you'll need it.

Post proof. You can't, because you are lying.

I don't need luck. Just you being a corrupt asshole does the trick.

Until the court takes them away.

Its a constitutional right and I can prove I am in imminent danger from you.

You are the one who lost the lawsuit.

Still active.

Irrelavant. Your lawsuit was already dismissed by then.

It's *irrelevant. And no.

I'd agree with you if I wasn't under the assumption that she is not entirely mentally sound. But, fair enough, I might have been overselling my point.

You are a criminal Dershoshit. You can say whatever the hell you want and you aren't right.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

I didn't follow this, but I have every right to exact my rights as pro se.

I wasn't talking about the court stuff here. I said I'm happy you're not in an abusive relationship.

They will. And anyone protecting rapists will get sued too.

You know where I stand on the matter.

I wouldn't be happy to see you. But you would probably get cussed out.

I doubt you would attack me, even verbally, especially if you saw how non-threatening I look.

I still hear you think I should be raped by Tony and run over in my rights.

I only wish you happiness, most certainly don't wish anything like this to happen to you.

We would never be besties.

Most likely. It takes a lot to be my bestie. But there is a lot of option between being besties and mutual dislike, or even between being besties and indifference.

Courts are super lenient on punishing pro se.

Well, if you want to have soft heart you better also have hard ass.

True, although I dare say she would not consider that an improvement.

Maybe we can agree on unintended improvement?

I'd agree with you if I wasn't under the assumption that she is not entirely mentally sound. But, fair enough, I might have been overselling my point.

Simplifying my point, I think threats made by any party in the thread were never meant to be fulfilled.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Simplifying my point, I think threats made by any party in the thread were never meant to be fulfilled.

You're not supposed to threaten people, period.

I'd pull a gun on someone like Tony Robbins, Alan Dershowitz, and Harvey Weinstein. In fact, I would be expected to after all the threats.
One friend of mine says she watches for me when I come into the store looking to buy a cast iron frying pan. She knows what it's about. These people "know" what's going on. They know who you all are and the gall you all act.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

You're not supposed to threaten people, period.

I don't if you haven't noticed.

I'd pull a gun on someone like Tony Robbins, Alan Dershowitz, and Harvey Weinstein. In fact, I would be expected to after all the threats.

Please be careful and don't draw your weapon unless you are absolutely sure your health or your life is in danger.

One friend of mine says she watches for me when I come into the store looking to buy a cast iron frying pan. She knows what it's about. These people "know" what's going on.

That's good. It's important to have a support group and people who keep you feeling safe.

They know who you all are and the gall you all act.

As I said, I'm a nobody. I don't do anything that takes any gall, I'm politely conversing with you.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I don't need luck. Just you being a corrupt asshole does the trick.

Since we are talking about corruption, how do you expect to win if every judge, clerk, etc is allegedly corrupt against you?

Its a constitutional right

Constitutional rights are constantly taken away. As an example, 14th amendment according to the Supreme Court grants you the constitutional right to "live and work where [you] will", and yet "[you] may be compelled, by force if need be, against [your] will and without regard to [your] personal wishes or [your] pecuniary interests, or even [your] religious or political convictions, to take [your] place in the ranks of the army of [your] country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense." (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) ).
14th amendment actually allows rights to be suspended "with due process of law".
Courts have also held almost forever that courts have unique power to enact restrictions to stop their abuse (Benjamin Franklin Phillips v. Telfair J. Mashburn, Judge, Mobile, Al. Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., Atty. Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., Atty. A. Neil Hudgens & Associates, John W. Coleman & Associates, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984), Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42 (1924), Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131 (1888 )

and I can prove I am in imminent danger from you.

No you can't, not that that would help with your abuse of the courts.

Still active.

It's *irrelevant. And no.

Yes. Look at the dates. Your lawsuit was dismissed on the 17th, the amended complaint arrived at 25th. By that time your lawsuit was already dismissed for 8 days.

You are a criminal Dershoshit.

False and defamatory.

You can say whatever the hell you want and you aren't right.

I am right. And I prove it with citations and proof every time.

Well, if you want to have soft heart you better also have hard ass.

True.

Maybe we can agree on unintended improvement?

Of course.

I think threats made by any party in the thread were never meant to be fulfilled

Agreed.

Sorry for the lunacy rating, misclicked. Fixed it.

You're not supposed to threaten people

But you are allowed to as long as your threats don't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test.

I'd pull a gun on someone like Tony Robbins, Alan Dershowitz, and Harvey Weinstein

That, in fact, is very illegal. You can get lawfully shot for less.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

I don't if you haven't noticed.

Please be careful and don't draw your weapon unless you are absolutely sure your health or your life is in danger.

That's good. It's important to have a support group and people who keep you feeling safe.

As I said, I'm a nobody. I don't do anything that takes any gall, I'm politely conversing with you.

I just farted.

Since we are talking about corruption, how do you expect to win if every judge, clerk, etc is allegedly corrupt against you?

They were under Trump's administration.

I am right. And I prove it with citations and proof every time.

nope

That, in fact, is very illegal. You can get lawfully shot for less.

Well, here's a thought. Stay away from me. Cause I have a paper trail. I will never like you, respect you, or even care about your well-being, ever. You're trash, pal. If someone shot you in front of me, I would let you bleed out on the street.

But you are allowed to as long as your threats don't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test.

Misinterpretation of the Brandenburg test and not in relation to personal rape threats of attack.

Yes. Look at the dates. Your lawsuit was dismissed on the 17th, the amended complaint arrived at 25th. By that time your lawsuit was already dismissed for 8 days.

The clerk may have told me to resubmit it and a possible new ruling could come and they would notify if the dismissal was set or other decisions???????? Yep. That sounds right.

Yeah, I knew about the dismissal, sent in a rebuttal, and the dismissal was halted. Sorry. I received nothing in the mail 14 days later which means they agreed with me.

Everyone saw Alan Dershowitz's impeachment spectacle saying the president has the right to do quid pro quo in order to be reelected again. Everyone knows you are as corrupt as the crust of your whitey tighties.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

They were under Trump's administration

Cool. Most of them still have jobs under Biden administration and would still be corrupt.

nope

Feel free to disprove me. You can't.

Well, here's a thought. Stay away from me.

No.

Cause I have a paper trail.

First step would be to, for the first time ever, actually submit said trail to the courts as evidence.

I will never like you, respect you, or even care about your well-being, ever.

Cool, I don't care.

You're trash, pal.

Right back at you, buddy.

If someone shot you in front of me, I would let you bleed out on the street.

Nice to hear you care so much about me.

Misinterpretation of the Brandenburg test and not in relation to personal rape threats of attack

I assume you have never read it then, because it's so clear it's impossible to misinterpret it.

"These later decisions have fashioned 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."

The clerk may have told me to resubmit it and a possible new ruling could come and they would notify if the dismissal was set or other decisions????????

I call bullshit. No clerk has the power to restart a lawsuit. If what you say did happen, then the clerk was lying to you, plain and simple.

Yep. That sounds right.

No, it doesn't.

Yeah, I knew about the dismissal

You didn't before I informed you on the 17th, as you yourself admited.

sent in a rebuttal,

Literally not a thing. Your only action was to appeal, which you had not done.

and the dismissal was halted.

Also not a thing. Your lawsuit was dismissed plain and simple.

Sorry. I received nothing in the mail 14 days later which means they agreed with me

Not how this works.

Everyone saw Alan Dershowitz's impeachment spectacle saying the president has the right to do quid pro quo in order to be reelected again. Everyone knows you are as corrupt as the crust of your whitey tighties.

Every politician does quid pro quo. Hell, half the things any normal person does in his or hers day to day life qualifies as quid pro quo.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Sorry for the lunacy rating, misclicked. Fixed it.

No worries, fren. Whenever I post in this thread I expect my notifications to be like:

Spoiler: Explained

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Did Parnalia realize how to make a sock account or are you just a randomly generated retard?

Retard that originally came to this site to defend Alinity

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Cool. Most of them still have jobs under Biden administration and would still be corrupt.

LOL sure pal. Thanks for the admission, Alan.

Literally not a thing. Your only action was to appeal, which you had not done.

Did.

Nice to hear you care so much about me.

I have a feeling many people hate you.

First step would be to, for the first time ever, actually submit said trail to the courts as evidence.

Yep. And that could still happen.

Not how this works.

It does in Georgia.

Every politician does quid pro quo. Hell, half the things any normal person does in his or hers day to day life qualifies as quid pro quo.

Not with another sovereign country.

Yep. And that could still happen.

And if you keep posting rape threats.

No worries, fren. Whenever I post in this thread I expect my notifications to be like:
View attachment 2139839

Spoiler: Explained

View attachment 2139872

MIchael Fassbender is now IOO.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

LOL sure pal. Thanks for the admission, Alan

Do you have a concept of thought permanence? We were talking about your hypothetical where everyone is corrupt.
I also don't know why you think that just because Biden came into power, all your alleged corruption just magically vanished. After all, your latest suit was dismissed after Biden became the president.

Did

You did not. If you did it would be on the record, which it is not.

I have a feeling many people hate you.

Nah. I'm well liked actually, especially if I'm the celebs you accuse me of being.

Yep. And that could still happen

That would be the first time you ever submitted any evidence to a federal court.

It does in Georgia.

Nope. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Not with another sovereign country

Pick any politician and president and they will have done it. That being said, the senate aquited Trump of such accusation.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

MIchael Fassbender is now IOO.

I give up, all I found about this acronym is Institute of Optometry.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Pick any politician and president and they will have done it. That being said, the senate aquited Trump of such accusation.

Who? Name one.

Do you have a concept of thought permanence? We were talking about your hypothetical where everyone is corrupt.
I also don't know why you think that just because Biden came into power, all your alleged corruption just magically vanished. After all, your latest suit was dismissed after Biden became the president.

It's not dismissed.

You did not. If you did it would be on the record, which it is not.

Did.

Nope. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm from Georgia. YOU PROVE ME WRONG.

That would be the first time you ever submitted any evidence to a federal court.

You submit evidence at a trial. I am going to request a trial after the Weinstein extradition.

Nah. I'm well liked actually, especially if I'm the celebs you accuse me of being.

lmao. NO

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Who? Name one.

Biden. With Ukraine, humorously enough.

It's not dismissed.

Did

Prove it. If you did, it'd be easy. I cheked the record today, you did not.

I'm from Georgia. YOU PROVE ME WRONG

I literally did. Every step of the way. Point to even a single rule/caselaw that supports your claim.

You submit evidence at a trial. I am going to request a trial after the Weinstein extradition.

Incorrect. Don't let tv law shows fool you.