Brian Kemper
@bwkemper
Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word. I don't reciprocate follows automatically nor do I follow accounts who don't post interesting content. Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
Which I did. Perhaps they think that because it's behind a pay wall, no one would contradict them.
That’s NOT what the Washington Post reported: www.washingtonpost.com/investigatio...
And you said that "you'd have no problem calling him a murderer" , which means you're not abiding by the very norm for which you advocate here.
A) Your opinion about Trump being a rapist wasn't about the Carroll incident, but instead, with regard to girls provided by Epstein:
I mean, I get the below was 7 months ago, but I'm betting your opinion hasn't changed since then.
Also, let me note about your comment about the facts that she didn't file a police report and waited five years to make public the issue. I noticed that you didn't seem to have the same issues about E. Jean Carroll when you posted an article about Trump being adjudicated a "rapist."
And what do you know? The absence of any guilty verdict with regard to Trump and the Epstein files didn't stop you from thinking Trump was guilty.
Before trial, its up to the police, prosecution, and maybe a grand jury to decide if the evidence meets the burden for the applicable stage. And that evidence may be a very detailed "claim" by one witness. In this Planter case, the woman's "claim," her story about what happened, is evidence.
Marjorie Taylor-Greene has been SWAT-ed multiple times. In instance below, police were on their way based upon a call, but called it when the operators got in touch with their security detail. So they received evidence of a crime (the call), but when more ... www.cbsnews.com/news/marjori...
Assault is often used confusingly even under the law. Under common law, an "assault" is used to describe an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. In other words, swinging a fist at someone ...
Lay people would consider "broadcasting" to include cable or streaming TV. But under federal law, "broadcasting" is statutorily limited to information transmitted by local broadcast stations over radiowave frequencies.
The NBC decision I cited in my thread explains that the only reason the FCC was allowed to act as a gatekeeper on who could get a broadcast license and who couldn't was because of the frequency scarcity issue, which only affected OTA.
applied outside of the medium. Congress NEVER gave the FCC authority to license and regulate cable channels or social media sites for a reason. Hell, the Equal Time Rule, which was created for the exact same reason the Doctrine was, has only ever applied to OTA broadcast. SCOTUS has explained:
Those aren’t “broadcast stations.”. They are cable channels not regulated by the FCC. “Broadcast stations” has a statutory definition that is limited to licensed local stations that transmit over radiowave frequencies. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
Yes, and the paper is said that testimony is evidence. The below screenshot is from the paper and it backs us up.
Because if you think he did it when he said he “didn’t find out about it until yesterday,” you still haven’t actually read what he was talking about.
Or the post where Denys “claimed he showed up last night” as he asserted below.
He claimed to be knowledgeable about WWII. And even if he didn’t known in 2008, he would have found out long before he claimed to have. Such as in 2009 or thereafter when Inglorious Bastards came out.
That discussion has been occurring in every thread that I have seen on Plather. As to whether Platner would know it’s a Nazi symbol, it’s not like it’s a secret one.
You see, a “rejoinder” is a response. But I point out your failure to “address” the points. Again, follow along Derek.
Also, as SCOTUS has made clear in Moody, "technical innovation" is not a reason that justifies use of the Doctrine: Technology may change but 1A protection does not. If anything such technological innovations work against the Doctrine, especially since 1996, as there are far more ways for ....
He's also claimed that Deny committed a crime, so there's going to be a lot of laughter in Florida over this.
Oh, and look at all these cases saying that calling someone racist, anti-semite, etc. are not defamatory, but are non-actionable opinion and/or hyperbolic rhetoric. I said that legal professionals were laughing at you before, they are certainly laughing at you now.