On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and
*admits* it — lied:

> On 5/31/2024 4:38 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On 5/31/2024 1:36 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times —
>> and *admits* it — lied:
>>
>>> On 5/31/2024 4:34 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:54 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times —
>>>> and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/31/2024 3:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:00 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times
>>>>>> — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:43 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 7:19 AM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>>>>>>>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 9:20 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:01 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:12 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 11:17:17 -0500, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:16 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 8:13 AM, Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 07:23:12 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken up a case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION (involving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection violation, in that this state trial court has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election without authority or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No such thing as a federal presidential election. What there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are state run elections for state presidential electors run under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state laws. Congress can make its own laws for federal courts let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them face constitutional challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Trump is convicted there will be an appeal.  Then we will see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is stupid, you or Mark Levin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump isn't being charged with violating federal law. Levin's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is very weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is his argument:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> May. 29, 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MY LEGAL ADVICE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS: NEXT STEP U.S. SUPREME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> COURT
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin's not a lawyer.  If he was, he might note the appellate courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> will have something
>>>>>>>>>>>> to say about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer; and there is a direct path the SCOTUS on appeal.
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether it hears it or not is another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer. But giving him credit for being intelligent, he
>>>>>>>>>> knows he is spouting shit just to drum up ratings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Common law writ. Rarely used, and even more rarely granted, but it is a
>>>>>>>>> direct path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuck off, you law-ignorant priest-fucked cocksucker. There is no direct
>>>>>>>> appeal of a state trial court verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common law writ,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> No. You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about, you
>>>> priest-fucked cocksucker.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I do.
>>
>> You don't. You're not a lawyer and you're not even an educated layman like
>> Rosenbluth.
>
> Common law writ.

You don't know what that even is or who issues it. If you had one fucking clue,
which being a priest-fucked little cocksucker you don't, you'd know that you
have to specify "writ of __________________", where "__________________" is
replaced by some other word or term. But you don't know that. You're just
repeating something you heard some other knuckle-dragging right-wingnut fuckwit
blabber.

I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS and Trump doesn't want one," to
which you farted "common law writ," not knowing what it means. I'll elaborate a
little: There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS *from a state trial court*. The
Supreme Court is not going take the case on appeal directly from a state trial
court.

On 6/1/2024 5:25 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>
>> On 5/31/2024 4:38 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2024 1:36 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:34 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:54 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds
>>>>> of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 3:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:00 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds
>>>>>>> of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:43 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 7:19 AM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests
>>>>>>>>> hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 9:20 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:01 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:12 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 11:17:17 -0500, Johnny
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:16 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 8:13 AM, Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 07:23:12 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up a case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (involving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection violation, in that this state trial court has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposefully interposed itself into the federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presidential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election without authority or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No such thing as a federal presidential election. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are state run elections for state presidential electors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state laws. Congress can make its own laws for federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courts let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them face constitutional challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Trump is convicted there will be an appeal.  Then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is stupid, you or Mark Levin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump isn't being charged with violating federal law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is very weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is his argument:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May. 29, 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MY LEGAL ADVICE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS: NEXT STEP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. SUPREME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COURT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin's not a lawyer.  If he was, he might note the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appellate courts will have something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer; and there is a direct path the SCOTUS on
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal. Whether it hears it or not is another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer. But giving him credit for being
>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent, he knows he is spouting shit just to drum up
>>>>>>>>>>> ratings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Common law writ. Rarely used, and even more rarely granted,
>>>>>>>>>> but it is a direct path.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fuck off, you law-ignorant priest-fucked cocksucker. There is
>>>>>>>>> no direct appeal of a state trial court verdict to the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Common law writ,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about, you
>>>>> priest-fucked cocksucker.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I do.
>>>
>>> You don't. You're not a lawyer and you're not even an educated layman
>>> like Rosenbluth.
>>
>> Common law writ.
>
> You don't know what that even is or who issues it. If you had one
> fucking clue, which being a priest-fucked little cocksucker you don't,
> you'd know that you have to specify "writ of __________________", where
> "__________________" is replaced by some other word or term. But you
> don't know that. You're just repeating something you heard some other
> knuckle-dragging right-wingnut fuckwit blabber.
>
> I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS

There is, Ball - common law writ. Rarely filed, even more rarely
granted. It likely won't be used here.

On 6/1/2024 2:42 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and
*admits* it — lied:

> On 6/1/2024 5:25 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>
>>> On 5/31/2024 4:38 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2024 1:36 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:34 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:54 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 3:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:00 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:43 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 7:19 AM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 9:20 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:01 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:12 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 11:17:17 -0500, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:16 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 8:13 AM, Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 07:23:12 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken up a case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION (involving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection violation, in that this state trial court has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election without authority or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No such thing as a federal presidential election. What there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are state run elections for state presidential electors run under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state laws. Congress can make its own laws for federal courts let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them face constitutional challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Trump is convicted there will be an appeal.  Then we will see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is stupid, you or Mark Levin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump isn't being charged with violating federal law. Levin's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is very weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is his argument:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May. 29, 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MY LEGAL ADVICE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS: NEXT STEP U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUPREME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COURT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin's not a lawyer.  If he was, he might note the appellate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courts will have something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer; and there is a direct path the SCOTUS on appeal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether it hears it or not is another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer. But giving him credit for being intelligent, he
>>>>>>>>>>>> knows he is spouting shit just to drum up ratings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Common law writ. Rarely used, and even more rarely granted, but it is
>>>>>>>>>>> a direct path.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fuck off, you law-ignorant priest-fucked cocksucker. There is no
>>>>>>>>>> direct appeal of a state trial court verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Common law writ,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about, you
>>>>>> priest-fucked cocksucker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I do.
>>>>
>>>> You don't. You're not a lawyer and you're not even an educated layman like
>>>> Rosenbluth.
>>>
>>> Common law writ.
>>
>> You don't know what that even is or who issues it. If you had one fucking
>> clue, which being a priest-fucked little cocksucker you don't, you'd know that
>> you have to specify "writ of __________________", where "__________________"
>> is replaced by some other word or term. But you don't know that. You're just
>> repeating something you heard some other knuckle-dragging right-wingnut
>> fuckwit blabber.
>>
>> I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>
> There is,

There is not, you priest-fucked little cocksucker.

> Ball

No such poster here, as you well know.

> common law writ.

You don't even know what that is or who does it. If you knew what it was, and
clearly you don't, you little priest-fucked cocksucker, you'd know that you
wrote an incomplete phrase. There is no such thing as simply "common law writ."
It's a writ *of* something, and you don't know what that something is.

As Rosenbluth already informed you, and you stupidly ignored (being a
priest-fucked little cocksucker), the Supreme Court cannot take an appeal
directly from a state trial court.

On 6/1/2024 2:42 PM, Yak wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 5:25 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of

{snip}

>> I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>
> There is, Ball - common law writ. Rarely filed, even more rarely
> granted. It likely won't be used here.

No, you are making that up.

28 U.S. Code § 1257 is dispositive in this case:

"Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in
which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by
writ of certiorari."

On 6/1/2024 3:18 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 2:42 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:

>> On 6/1/2024 5:25 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and *admits* it — lied:
>
> {snip}
>
>>> I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>
>> There is, Ball

No such poster here, as Gak, fucked up the ass hundreds of times by priests,
well knows.

- common law writ. Rarely filed, even more rarely granted. It
>> likely won't be used here.
>
> No, you are making that up.

He's not only making it up, but he doesn't even know what it is. That's why he
keeps using an incomplete phrase. There is no such thing as just "common law
writ," /tout court/. It's a writ *of* something: a writ of prohibition, a writ
of mandamus, a writ of _____________. Gak doesn't know what the fuck he's
bullshitting about.

It is beyond obvious that Gak thinks the writ itself would be something Trump
would file. What a fucking bonehead!

>
> 28 U.S. Code § 1257 is dispositive in this case:
>
> "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a
> decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari."

The court would have to find that there was some federal issue before they
granted cert. If the state appeals courts all found that Justice Merchan's
decisions on motions and his instructions to the jury were in perfect accord
with New York state law, and if SCOTUS doesn't find an federal issue, including
any constitutional defects in state law, then they're not going to grant cert.
They are not going to second-guess New York's appellate courts' review of New
York state law.

On 01 Jun 2024, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con> posted some
news:toN6O.6531$gn%7.1236@fx12.iad:

> On 6/1/2024 3:18 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 6/1/2024 2:42 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>
>>> On 6/1/2024 5:25 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>>>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>>> I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>>
>>> There is, Ball
>
> No such poster here, as Gak, fucked up the ass hundreds of times by
> priests, well knows.

Canoza, Ball, Terrell, Colangelo, all the same buffoon.

> - common law writ. Rarely filed, even more rarely granted. It
>>> likely won't be used here.
>>
>> No, you are making that up.
>
> He's not only making it up, but he doesn't even know what it is.
> That's why he keeps using an incomplete phrase. There is no such thing
> as just "common law writ," /tout court/. It's a writ *of* something: a
> writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, a writ of _____________. Gak
> doesn't know what the fuck he's bullshitting about.

Failed accounting clerks shouldn't try and explain legal procedure.
There absolutely is a common law writ. It has specific limits and
purpose.

> It is beyond obvious that Gak thinks the writ itself would be
> something Trump would file. What a fucking bonehead!

If appropriate, he could. It depends on the why.

>>
>> 28 U.S. Code § 1257 is dispositive in this case:
>>
>> "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State
>> in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme
>> Court by writ of certiorari."
>
> The court would have to find that there was some federal issue before
> they granted cert. If the state appeals courts all found that Justice
> Merchan's decisions on motions and his instructions to the jury were
> in perfect accord with New York state law, and if SCOTUS doesn't find
> an federal issue, including any constitutional defects in state law,
> then they're not going to grant cert. They are not going to
> second-guess New York's appellate courts' review of New York state
> law.

Go back and fail accounting class again, Jon boy. You'll never make it
in the legal field, you'd starve to death.

Prosecutorial misconduct or flawed instructions seem a good place to
start. In particular if the appeals court appears to be deliberately
stalling and the delay could cause irreparable harm to the appellant.

On 6/1/2024 2:49 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 2:42 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times — and
> *admits* it — lied:
>
>> On 6/1/2024 5:25 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2024 1:49 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times —
>>> and *admits* it — lied:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:38 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2024 1:36 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times —
>>>>> and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:34 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:54 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>>>>>>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 3:16 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 12:00 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>>>>>>>>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:43 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 7:19 AM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of
>>>>>>>>>>> times — and *admits* it — lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 9:20 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:01 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:12 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 11:17:17 -0500, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:16 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 8:13 AM, Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 07:23:12 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Manhattan trial court has done worse. It has taken up a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which there is exclusive FEDERAL JURISDICTION (involving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is so stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection violation, in that this state trial court has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> election without authority or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No such thing as a federal presidential election. What there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are state run elections for state presidential electors run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state laws. Congress can make its own laws for federal courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them face constitutional challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Trump is convicted there will be an appeal.  Then we will see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is stupid, you or Mark Levin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump isn't being charged with violating federal law. Levin's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is very weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is his argument:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May. 29, 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MY LEGAL ADVICE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS: NEXT STEP U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUPREME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COURT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin's not a lawyer.  If he was, he might note the appellate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> courts will have something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer; and there is a direct path the SCOTUS on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal. Whether it hears it or not is another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Levin is a lawyer. But giving him credit for being intelligent, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows he is spouting shit just to drum up ratings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Common law writ. Rarely used, and even more rarely granted, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a direct path.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck off, you law-ignorant priest-fucked cocksucker. There is no
>>>>>>>>>>> direct appeal of a state trial court verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Common law writ,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. You don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about, you
>>>>>>> priest-fucked cocksucker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't. You're not a lawyer and you're not even an educated layman like
>>>>> Rosenbluth.
>>>>
>>>> Common law writ.
>>>
>>> You don't know what that even is or who issues it. If you had one fucking
>>> clue, which being a priest-fucked little cocksucker you don't, you'd know
>>> that you have to specify "writ of __________________", where
>>> "__________________" is replaced by some other word or term. But you don't
>>> know that. You're just repeating something you heard some other
>>> knuckle-dragging right-wingnut fuckwit blabber.
>>>
>>> I said, "There is no direct appeal to SCOTUS
>>
>> There is,
>
> There is not, you priest-fucked little cocksucker.
>
>> Ball
>
> No such poster here, as you well know.
>
>> common law writ.
>
> You don't even know what that is or who does it. If you knew what it was, and
> clearly you don't, you little priest-fucked cocksucker, you'd know that you
> wrote an incomplete phrase. There is no such thing as simply "common law writ."
> It's a writ *of* something, and you don't know what that something is.
>
> As Rosenbluth already informed you, and you stupidly ignored (being a
> priest-fucked little cocksucker), the Supreme Court cannot take an appeal
> directly from a state trial court.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:17:22 -0000 (UTC), uncle reggie <uncle.reggie@cpa.not> wrote:

>Failed accounting clerks shouldn't try and explain legal procedure.
>There absolutely is a common law writ. It has specific limits and
>purpose.

Which you have not explained. So you've merely made an empty accusation.

Swill
--
#nevertrump

"Your reputation will be damaged as everybody's reputation is damaged who gets involved
with Donald Trump. He's damaged goods, There's no good dealing with him
because you will end up on the bottom of a pyre." - Steve Cohen to John Durham

Durham, Meadows, Cohen, Ellis, Eastman, Bobb, Giuliani, Lindell, Nauta

Let's not add America to this list.

#nevertrump