Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

More progress, so here is another... PUPdate -- Only 29 Cases Remain Open..!! #DKButterfly Goldberg vs Adversary Cases 255 Closed 29 Open 1 Appeal 🍌 ======== 285 Total All rise for Judge Pappy..!! Keeper of Justice. ⚖️ Just remember, nobody knows when, or how much, the PlanMan is still...

24,569 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Kash Patel CONFIRMS Judge Juan Merchan should have never been assigned to Donald Trump’s case Kash Patel “I'm calling for the subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchant's Daughter's company who made $15+ million dollars from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom - I wanna know the bank records because money doesn't lie - I wanna know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family and how much of it is going to the family after this false conviction - Then we need to investigate the FEC actual violations that this judge and his family conducted Judge Juan Merchan should never have been overseeing this trial to begin with because of the illicit campaign money that was flowing through there and the unconstitutional due process violations are only the beginning.“ That’s not all, here’s more reasons why he should have NEVER been assigned Donald Trump’s case from The Older Millennial: ‘For these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. The only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. The wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats.’ Insane corruption.

Wall Street Apes

3,331,547 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to be sentenced for 34 counts on January 10th ahead of inauguration Judge Merchan was never supposed to oversee Donald Trump’s case, he was specifically assigned the case to weaponize our legal system against Trump, here’s the proof “Understand there's absolutely no reason that Judge Merchan should have even had a chance to be assigned to this case? Now, I'm sure the left is just gonna call this a conspiracy theory. ‌ So I'll issue a challenge to them, and maybe they can tell me how he managed to be the judge. Because for these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. ‌ That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. So even though they're trying to claim that they didn't pick the judge, that it was randomly assigned, that's not possible because judge Merchan isn't in the pool to be randomly assigned. So the only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. ‌ And the wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. ‌ So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats. ‌ But, yeah, I'm sure this was just a coincidence. It was a coincidence that one of the most high profile cases ever, we didn't assign a judge, we assigned an acting judge. ‌ And that that judge somehow got selected even though he wasn't in the pool of judges available to be selected, and that that same judge that was selected also caught 2 other Trump related cases in the same year, and then that judge's daughter makes tens of millions of dollars a year promoting Democrats. Yeah. I'm sure that's all a coincidence.”

Wall Street Apes

514,459 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is the real reason America is headed toward civil war, and almost nobody understands what's happening (1/3): "We're headed toward civil war, and this is what caused it: We can't get resolution in the courts. There's nowhere else to go. The courts refuse to do their jobs." Electrical engineer and independent investigator John Beaudoin, Sr. (John Beaudoin, Sr., The Real CdC, The Last Boomer) describes for Cornelia Rose (Flashlights Podcast) how two rulings from 2007 and 2009—Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly and Ashcroft v Iqbal—have severely hamstrung plaintiffs' ability to argue their cases in U.S. courts—particularly in regard to civil rights and discrimination lawsuits. Now, because people with legitimate grievances can't get their proverbial day in court, justice is seeping out onto the streets. Ultimately, Beaudoin says, this will lead to civil war for America. For reference, per Grok (asked to provide an overview of Ashcroft v Iqbal in simple language aimed at a lay population): "In 2009, the Supreme Court decided a big case called Ashcroft v. Iqbal. A man named Javaid Iqbal sued top government officials, saying they put him in harsh detention after 9/11 because of his religion and race. The Court (in a close 5–4 vote) said that to keep a lawsuit alive, you can’t just make vague accusations or repeat legal buzzwords. You need clear, specific facts that make the claim seem realistic—not just possible, but plausible. If the complaint looks mostly like conclusions without solid facts to back them up, the judge can throw the case out early, before any evidence is gathered." "This ruling (together with a similar 2007 case called Twombly) gave judges much more power to dismiss cases right at the start. Before, many lawsuits could move forward to the evidence stage; after Iqbal, dismissal rates jumped from around half to two-thirds or more, especially in civil-rights and discrimination cases. Courts also started using the same tough 'plausibility' test when checking if a plaintiff was actually harmed and can trace that harm to the defendant (this is called 'standing'). As a result, thousands of cases now get thrown out early for sounding too weak or speculative, making it much harder for regular people to sue the government or big companies." ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "You've got a lot of things happening in the United States and around the world. One is climate change. You bring a case. Climate change dismissed. Elections in 2020. Sixty cases were brought on behalf of the Trump campaign. Sixty. All 60 were dismissed without a substantive hearing. They didn't get to discovery. They were dismissed on the procedural stage." "And for an example, not only my three cases, they used Ashcroft versus Iqbal, right? They used these cases against me, in all three of the cases I brought. But also from me, little old me, pro se litigant, not a lawyer, representing myself, all the way up to the— the, the states, Texas and Missouri, brought a case against Pennsylvania for the elections, saying that Pennsylvania broke its own laws. It automatically goes to the Supreme Court because it's two states against another state. "They call it original jurisdiction. So it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, dismissed, you don't have standing. And they cited Ashcroft versus Iqbal. So not only was it my cases, but all the way up to The President, and 60 cases, all dismissed. They all say you don't have standing. "So it's elections, it's climate, it's trans in kids, it's Covid. Covid vaccines. Whatever social issue it is, you don't get any resolution in the courts. The courts are not doing their job of dispute resolution. "So what happens, Cornelia, is civil society breaks down. You have people dividing into camps because the issues are not being settled or adjudicated. And so you leave it to society to fight amongst each other, fight on social media, fight in the streets. So we're devolving as a civil society based on what's happened with, with these two cases and the way the courts are operating extremely inefficiently, dismissing righteous cases that should be heard. "So, anyway, the summation is— This graph is the problem with the United States. And everybody's looking at the executive and legislative branches trying to solve it. That's not where the problem is. You can fix those two branches if the courts will actually hear the cases. They're not hearing them."

Sense Receptor

47,261 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten