Advice for the day: If you have a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: Take two, and KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN.
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
He stole it, of course. The lazy pigs just didn't want to do anything to take back a bike stolen from an Autie boy. They just wanted to continue drinking coffee and eating donuts.
Quote from: TheoK on July 26, 2009, 02:48:03 AMHe stole it, of course. The lazy pigs just didn't want to do anything to take back a bike stolen from an Autie boy. They just wanted to continue drinking coffee and eating donuts. That's what I thought as well, but the police telling the parents that they could be the ones getting into trouble for taking the bike back instead of the bikejacker was just crazy.
Glad to hear you call autism faciliated communications access lawsuits "frivolous."
It's your time and it was you the Court mentioned as being known locally for filing frivilous suits. Being known for that will tend to impugn your credibility.
You are a real shining star.
Here, they usually make people pay for court costs up front to discourage them from filing too many lawsuits, but sometimes the courts make exceptions if someone is nearly destitute, so an inmate in prison, for example, could file a lawsuit.
Quote from: Callaway on July 26, 2009, 03:37:39 PMHere, they usually make people pay for court costs up front to discourage them from filing too many lawsuits, but sometimes the courts make exceptions if someone is nearly destitute, so an inmate in prison, for example, could file a lawsuit.Civil lawsuits in Sweden are usually paid by the ones losing them, though criminal lawsuits are paid by the state. We don't have the same tradition of compensation for unjust treatment by courts and authorities as you have in America. 3 years innocent in the worst prison in Sweden would give you about 3 million kronor~US$375000.
Quote from: EquiisSavant on July 25, 2009, 10:29:37 PMGlad to hear you call autism faciliated communications access lawsuits "frivolous." As can be seen in the quoted post below what I did was note that the Court mentioned that you are known locally for filing frivilous lawsuits. Was that assesment not in some of the Court documents that Singularty posted links to? Quote from: PPK on July 25, 2009, 04:38:42 PMIt's your time and it was you the Court mentioned as being known locally for filing frivilous suits. Being known for that will tend to impugn your credibility.Am I incorrect in believing that having a reputation for filing frivilous lawsuits can impugn a persons credibility?
Yeah thanks for posting that Singularity.
I am disabled, autistic. I also have traumatic brain injury from my father bashing my head against his walls to cover up drugging me and sexually abusing me when I was a minor child. I have lived a life of Hell on Earth, no affordable housing. Lived in my car, in vineyards in California at nite, and in a rat infested chinchilla barn with no toilet, heat, or food facilities.I tried to pull myself up by my bootstraps. Went to college on student loans, $200,000 at last count. Fought valiantly to graduate law school.My father, who bashed my head, could not let the defective child become a lawyer and expose his National Security surveillance work for IBM. So he spent $100,000 on five attorneys and a family law psychologist to abuse me in the California courts in a grandparent visitation, taking away complete custody over my daughter just because he "could provide better" on his $12,600 per month income than I could being disabled -- never any finding of parental unfitness on my part.The California courts refused to provide my necessary reasonable accommodations to access the courts to fight for my daughter, so my mother tried to help scribe my pleadings for me. Allowing a defective disabled autistic to actually participate in court was too much for the Court system and the attorneys, so they caused my mother (who was my caretaker and financial provider) to set herself on fire and die on my father's front law with public protest signs over the abuse, which I witnessed acquiring PTSD.Immediately after she died, I was thrown on the streets homeless with no replacement caretaker or financial support of any kind. It was a terror-filled torture I cannot begin to describe. I begged everyone I still knew to help me get pleadings scribed to put before the California court that killed her to ask my father to pay disability adult child support, since after my mother died he was my only available guardian for purposes of my ability to communicate with courts and agencies for disability benefits.The California courts have never in 16 years given me a day for that hearing, ever.My father hired new attorneys to threaten me, knowing he was my guardian and had fiduciary duties to assist me with obtaining the disability adult support from him, who threatened that if I did not sign a paper dropping my necessary disability support, my father would destroy my California bar admission.Immediately after my mother died, the California Bar revoked my previously granted good moral character clearance because I was disabled and my mother had self-immolated and I lost my caretaker and financial supporter. Even though I fought with them for 7 long years to get my necessary reasonable accommodations, and finally when I got them on the 4th bar examination and passed, they ruled I was not of the moral character to be allowed to become a California lawyer because I kept being homeless due to no housing in that area of California anyone on SSI disability could afford and because without a speech recognition assistive device I was unable to perform the tasks of working. They approved the good moral character of a murderer with 17 felony convictions who stabbed to death with scissors his sister.When I tried to appeal, I was never to this day, 16 years later, allowed to have my appeal pleadings docketed, never given any appeal review, and they simply closed my case in a non-final status. When I asked the California Supreme Court for reasonable accommodations to file a petition to get an order requiring the appeal to be heard, I was told by the Clerk of Court on instructions of the Chief Justice Ronald M. George that people without arms, quadraplegics, and people with autism/learning disabilities who use speech recognition will not be licensed as attorneys in California.I fled to Florida, to try to get my bar admission there. My father surreptitiously followed me closeby concealing himself just over the border in Georgia, and continued to prey on my daughter and myself to make sure I never get my bar admission.
Quote from: EquiisSavant on July 25, 2009, 10:23:17 PMQuote from: Callaway on July 25, 2009, 05:23:33 PMSince you know a lot about the law even if you aren't an attorney, I wonder if I could ask you your opinion about the law, EquiisSavant?My friend's young teenage son has AS. He was out riding his bike one day, when a bully who had bullied him before told him that he had to give him his bike "or else".Fearing for his personal safety, her son got off the bike and the bully took it. Then he walked home and told his parents what had happened and they took him to the police station to make a complaint. The police said that there was nothing they could do even though her son could identify the bully because her son voluntarily gave the bullly his bike.Were the police correct in their assessment, or did the bully steal the bike? To make it even worse, they later drove by the bully's house, saw the bike in his yard and took it back. When the police called them to follow up and they told them about this, the police said that they could be the ones who got into trouble for taking the bike back, not the bully bike thief.Callaway, I don't give legal advice. I'm not a licensed lawyer. I wasn't looking for legal advice. My friend isn't suing the police department. I just wanted your opinion as to whether or not the bully stole the bike from my friend's son or if the police were correct that he voluntarily gave it to hm.I think that by their logic carjackers don't actually steal people's cars, the owners just give them their cars voluntarily when the carjackers order the owners to get out.
Quote from: Callaway on July 25, 2009, 05:23:33 PMSince you know a lot about the law even if you aren't an attorney, I wonder if I could ask you your opinion about the law, EquiisSavant?My friend's young teenage son has AS. He was out riding his bike one day, when a bully who had bullied him before told him that he had to give him his bike "or else".Fearing for his personal safety, her son got off the bike and the bully took it. Then he walked home and told his parents what had happened and they took him to the police station to make a complaint. The police said that there was nothing they could do even though her son could identify the bully because her son voluntarily gave the bullly his bike.Were the police correct in their assessment, or did the bully steal the bike? To make it even worse, they later drove by the bully's house, saw the bike in his yard and took it back. When the police called them to follow up and they told them about this, the police said that they could be the ones who got into trouble for taking the bike back, not the bully bike thief.Callaway, I don't give legal advice. I'm not a licensed lawyer.
Since you know a lot about the law even if you aren't an attorney, I wonder if I could ask you your opinion about the law, EquiisSavant?My friend's young teenage son has AS. He was out riding his bike one day, when a bully who had bullied him before told him that he had to give him his bike "or else".Fearing for his personal safety, her son got off the bike and the bully took it. Then he walked home and told his parents what had happened and they took him to the police station to make a complaint. The police said that there was nothing they could do even though her son could identify the bully because her son voluntarily gave the bullly his bike.Were the police correct in their assessment, or did the bully steal the bike? To make it even worse, they later drove by the bully's house, saw the bike in his yard and took it back. When the police called them to follow up and they told them about this, the police said that they could be the ones who got into trouble for taking the bike back, not the bully bike thief.