There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month. >>>>
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month. >>
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gottenValid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month. >>>>
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all >> the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
-hh
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten >> while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all >> the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month. >>>>>
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government? >> Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
I already have, Fool.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month. >>>>>>>>>
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten >>>>>>> while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all >>>>>>> the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up. >>
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten >>>>>>> while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reportingTommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
news, right?
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
-hh
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reportingTommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
news, right?
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
-hh
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hhLOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
what they will review following a petition to the court: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's whyThere are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:-hhLOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
what they will review following a petition to the court: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court
cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hhSorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:-hhLOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
what they will review following a petition to the court: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court
cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid.
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain.
Explain why you think it isn't valid.
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting >>>>>>>> news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court
cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting >>>>>>>> news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since >>> the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court
cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law” >>>
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting >>>>>>>>>> news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes.
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since >>>>> the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court
cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law” >>>>>
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state: >>> https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??
On 2023-03-24 22:41, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselves
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Wow....
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad...
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes. >>>>>>>>>
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court >>>>> cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??It's just the best I need for you, Sunshine.
The SC ruled against that state in Brown v. Board of Education...
...because they were ruling on the issue of equal protection under the law...
...as required by the 14th amendment...
...to the US constitution.
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:25:16 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-24 22:41, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:It's just the best I need for you, Sunshine.
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselvesOn Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/Wow....
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes. >>>>>>>>>>>
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since >>>>>>> the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court >>>>>>> cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law” >>>>>>>
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??
The SC ruled against that state in Brown v. Board of Education...
...because they were ruling on the issue of equal protection under the
law...
...as required by the 14th amendment...
...to the US constitution.
LOL! They got right into the MIDDLE of a state's rights issue, you Fool. This is EXACTLY what you said they CAN'T DO!!
On 2023-03-26 17:31, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:25:16 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-24 22:41, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:It's just the best I need for you, Sunshine.
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.
But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselvesOn Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/Wow....
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes. >>>>>>>>>>>
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court >>>>>>> cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??
The SC ruled against that state in Brown v. Board of Education...
...because they were ruling on the issue of equal protection under the
law...
...as required by the 14th amendment...
...to the US constitution.
LOL! They got right into the MIDDLE of a state's rights issue, you Fool. This is EXACTLY what you said they CAN'T DO!!Nope. The issue was "equal protection under the law".
On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 10:21:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-26 17:31, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:25:16 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. The issue was "equal protection under the law".
On 2023-03-24 22:41, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:It's just the best I need for you, Sunshine.
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:
Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselvesOn Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/Wow....
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but TRILLIONS is all fine?
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue”
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court >>>>>>>>> cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??
The SC ruled against that state in Brown v. Board of Education...
...because they were ruling on the issue of equal protection under the >>>> law...
...as required by the 14th amendment...
...to the US constitution.
LOL! They got right into the MIDDLE of a state's rights issue, you Fool. This is EXACTLY what you said they CAN'T DO!!
Nope, Fool. This contradicts the Lyin' Asshole's claim:
"Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn."
On 2023-03-28 19:53, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 10:21:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-26 17:31, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:25:16 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. The issue was "equal protection under the law".
On 2023-03-24 22:41, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:It's just the best I need for you, Sunshine.
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide.But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselvesOn Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.
On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid.
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/Wow....
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but TRILLIONS is all fine? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue” >>>>>>>>>
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court >>>>>>>>> cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??
The SC ruled against that state in Brown v. Board of Education...
...because they were ruling on the issue of equal protection under the >>>> law...
...as required by the 14th amendment...
...to the US constitution.
LOL! They got right into the MIDDLE of a state's rights issue, you Fool. This is EXACTLY what you said they CAN'T DO!!
Nope, Fool. This contradicts the Lyin' Asshole's claim:No. Not in the slightest.
"Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn."
State law and court decisions that can be challenged on constitutional grounds can be appeal to the the USSC.
State law and court decisions that can't be challenged on constitutional grounds...
...can't.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:56:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-28 19:53, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 10:21:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:No. Not in the slightest.
On 2023-03-26 17:31, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 6:25:16 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. The issue was "equal protection under the law".
On 2023-03-24 22:41, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8:33:33 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:It's just the best I need for you, Sunshine.
On 2023-03-19 23:43, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:38:53 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:21:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 4:03:12 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:45:40 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-17 22:18, Tommy wrote:You really are this ignorant of your own country.
For example, in Brown v Board of Education, the SC ruled AGAINST the state:Sorry, Lyin' Asshole, that would be up to the SC to decide. >>>>>>>>>But it isn’t unfettered, as per your own citation:LOL! You don't know SHIT about the law, Lyin' Asshole. The SC decides for themselvesOn Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:05:06 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 9:42:58 PM UTC-4, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
GOOD! A part of a lawsuit is something called "discovery" - look it up.On 2023-03-17 07:22, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Explain why you think it isn't valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While Tommy is at it, he can try to square what the perps did relative to DE Law.
On 2023-03-16 20:59, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 6:21:12 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Sorry, Sunshine, but the comparison is valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:12:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-15 20:06, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of very suspicious financial transactions involving the Lyin' Bidens:Or BILLIONS from Junior, who's actually under active criminal investigation. That's why
https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/us-treasury-department-gives-house-gop-access-to-biden-family-suspicious-activity-reports/Wow....
So "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" is bad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but TRILLIONS is all fine? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
Daddy Trump has been invited to testify at the Grand Jury this month.
-hh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, idiots, but investigators ARE NOT swayed by your ridiculous WHATABOUTISMs.
How can you be upset by what Hunter Biden may or may not have gotten
while his father wasn't even in government and not be upset about all
the graft that Trump and his hangers-on got while actually IN government?
Valid to YOU, Fool! Others actually have a brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As per the lawsuit filed today for invasion of privacy, Hunter Biden's argument
is that even if Mac Isaac did possess his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law limits
Issac’s legal capacity to access or disseminate the data contained in it.
The implications are that Issac’s best defense strains to claim the laptop was
never Hunter’s and that a 3rd party was wholly responsible for all of the alleged “data”.
Oh, I’m familiar with discovery … as well as how it isn’t particularly relevant
for DE’s privacy protection law, and how discovery requests can’t be fishing
expeditions for off-topic stuff.
-hh
ALL of BooBoo's laptop IS on topic, idiot.
You're quoting an outfit that admits they're not actually reporting
news, right?
Tommy's quoting an outfit that *claims in court* that they're not credible.
And be that as it may, DE privacy law violations don't care if there's evidence of other
off-topic crimes: what they did make public was still an illegal breach of privacy for
which the morons who did it have to pay for their crimes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If one speeds through town to get to the FBI with proof of the identity of the Lindberg baby
kidnapper, the local cop in the speed trap does not care: he still writes you a speeding ticket.
Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn.
LOL - RSG's self-appointed legal expert doesn't know about appeals to the SC.
The only loophole is at nothing less than the US Supreme court level, and they may
review the decisions of state supreme courts, if and only if the case (a) makes it up
to said State Supreme Court, and (b) that State court's decision appears to conflict
with applicable federal law.
That’s a pretty tiny needle to thread, especially when there’s prior legal precedent.
-hh
what they will review following a petition to the court: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
“… if the state court decided a Constitutional issue” >>>>>>>>>>>
This is because:
“[The] court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court >>>>>>>>>>> cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law”
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/empirical-scotus-the-importance-of-state-court-cases-before-scotus/>
FYI, this may also be helpful for you:
< https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts>
-hh
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
LOL! Is this the BEST you can do? REALLY??
The SC ruled against that state in Brown v. Board of Education...
...because they were ruling on the issue of equal protection under the >>>>>> law...
...as required by the 14th amendment...
...to the US constitution.
LOL! They got right into the MIDDLE of a state's rights issue, you Fool. This is EXACTLY what you said they CAN'T DO!!
Nope, Fool. This contradicts the Lyin' Asshole's claim:
"Plus note jurisdictionally, it is *State* law, so Trump's "packed bench" SCOTUS can't overturn."
State law and court decisions that can be challenged on constitutional
grounds can be appeal to the the USSC.
State law and court decisions that can't be challenged on constitutional
grounds...
...can't.
Tell me, Fool, WHO decides this?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 71:03:09 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,967 |