My Introduction Was Requested By PPK

[TheoK]

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. 

[earthboundmisfit]

but donuts are gooooooooooooood...




BORK BORK BORK

[Callaway]

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. 

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.

[TheoK]

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. 

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.

Like Swedish cops. Cops are swines.

[P7PSP]

Glad 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? 

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.

Am I incorrect in believing that having a reputation for filing frivilous lawsuits can impugn a persons credibility?

You are a real shining star.

Thank you.  Now, will you answer the question about how much research you put into determining that I am a Federal Cop?

[TheoK]

In Sweden most of those lawsuits would be impossible in the first place. You ahve a good legal system in the US.

[Callaway]

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.

[TheoK]

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.

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.

[Callaway]

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.

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.

That's the same here, so if I bring a civil lawsuit against someone and win, my court costs would usually be reimbursed by the defendant.  If I lose, of course I bear my own court costs.

My husband once went to small claims court and sued a driver who failed to yield right of way at a stop sign and hit him, because her insurance company refused to pay him enough money to fix his car and he couldn't sue them.  He paid the court costs up front when he filed the lawsuit, but he wound up being reimbursed by the insurance company when they lost.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Glad 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?  

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.

Am I incorrect in believing that having a reputation for filing frivilous lawsuits can impugn a persons credibility?

That's why I posted them because I knew something was suss about her. People here need to know the truth as written in those court documents in order to make a fair assessment.

Apparently she has an alleged notorious history on the internet too for causing trouble when people disagree with her or challenge her. I provide one link to show a clear example of this and considering her behavior on here, well it's intriguingly similar. Read all the pages, and you'll see what I mean (she is alleged to be Black Knight via citing her name in her own posts.):

http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=39438

[P7PSP]

Yeah thanks for posting that Singularity.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Yeah thanks for posting that Singularity.

Your welcome.

And to think, if she would have been nice and respectful to other members here who were trying to help; I wouldn't have even wasted my time on her.

[P7PSP]

Yeah I was done posting as well until she started slinging shit at renaeden, SleepyDragon and Soph for no good reason.

[Callaway]

I found this post from the same website, explaining why she is not a lawyer even though she passed the bar in California.  They revoked her good moral character clearance when she lost her home.  How old was your daughter when this all happened, EquiisSavant?

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.

[EquiisSavant]

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.

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.

The way you have framed/phrased the question is classic for a UPL. You have framed/phrased it to ask me to give you legal advice, which I cannot give you because I am not licensed as a lawyer. I am sorry.